Court Opinion

ID: 9891673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 14:18:41.852886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:04.037213
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michael Rosato and                      :
Augusto Sciullo,                        :
                 Appellants             :
                                        :
            v.                          :
                                        :   No. 446 C.D. 2022
Allegheny County Health Department      :   Submitted: April 14, 2023

BEFORE:     HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
            HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
            HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                     FILED: October 19, 2023

             Michael Rosato and Augusto Sciullo (collectively, Appellants) appeal
the March 31, 2022 order (Trial Court Order) of the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County (Trial Court). The Trial Court Order affirmed the April 15, 2021
Decision and Order (Department Decision) of the Allegheny County Health
Department (Department) determining that the Department met its burden to show
that a civil penalty was justified based on Appellants’ multiple violations of the
Department’s Rules and Regulations (Regulations) pertaining to repairs to a rental
unit owned by Appellants. Upon review, we affirm.
                                        I. Background
               The facts underlying this matter are straightforward and not in dispute.
Appellants collectively own a rental property located at 4913 Sciota Street,
Pittsburgh, Allegheny County (Property), which the Department inspected on
August 16, 2019.1 That inspection revealed multiple violations of the Regulations,
including an inadequate number of electrical outlets in a second-floor bedroom, a
gap in the living room floor, a hole in the kitchen ceiling, a covered radiator, and a
missing stair rail (collectively, the Violations).2, 3 See Department Decision at 1,

       1
        The Property was occupied at the time by Duane Jones (Resident). See Trial Court
Opinion at 1, Reproduced Record (RR) at 188a.
       2
        The parties agreed that the Violations pertaining to the radiator cover and the stair rail
were the responsibility of Resident, not Appellants. See Department Hearing Officer Decision
dated April 15, 2021 (Department Decision) at 3, RR at 22a.
       3
         As the Trial Court noted, the Violations concerned Sections 622, 623, 628(A), and 629(A)
of Article VI of the Regulations, which provide:

               622. General Structure: Principal Members.
               Every exterior wall, roof and foundation shall be weather tight and
               watertight. Every floor, wall and ceiling shall be sound and tight.
               All members of the structure shall be kept in good repair and in safe
               condition.

               623. General Structure: Stairs and Porches.
               Every inside and outside stairs, every porch and every other
               appurtenance to the structure shall be so constructed as to be safe for
               use, shall be kept in sound and good repair. The Director may
               require that any inside or outside stairways have at least one (1)
               well-secured handrail, which extend the full length of the stairway,
               when it is deemed necessary for safe passage.

               ....

               628. Utilities and Fixtures: Electric Fixtures and Outlets.
               A. Every outlet and fixture shall be properly installed, maintained
               in good and safe working condition and connected to the source of
               electric energy in a safe manner. Every habitable room in a dwelling

                                                 2
Reproduced Record (RR) at 20a; see also Trial Court Rule 1925 Opinion4 dated
August 16, 2022 (Trial Court Opinion) at 1-2, RR at 188a-89a. The Department
conducted follow-up inspections of the Property on September 25, 2019 and
November 26, 2019, during which the Department observed that the Violations had
not been remedied. See Department Decision at 1-2, RR at 20a-21a; Trial Court
Opinion at 2, RR at 189a. As a result of the Violations, on January 2, 2020, the
Department imposed a civil penalty of $2,500.00 (Penalty).                           See Department
Decision at 1-2, RR at 20a-21a; Trial Court Opinion at 3, RR at 190a. Following
the imposition of the Penalty and a conference with the Department in March of
2020, Appellants ultimately addressed and corrected the Violations in March of
2020, which corrections the Department confirmed through another inspection

                supplied with electric service shall contain at least two (2) separate
                baseboard or wall type electric convenience outlets or one (1) such
                convenience outlet and one supplied ceiling or wall type electric
                light fixtures or any other fixtures or devices as will provide
                equivalent electric service.          All other rooms and every
                communicating corridor, public hall and stairway shall contain at
                least one ceiling or wall type electric light fixture or any other fixture
                or device as will provide equivalent electric service.

                ....

                629. Utilities and Fixtures: Heating.
                A. Every dwelling occupied during the heating season shall have
                heating facilities which are properly installed, maintained in a safe
                and good working condition, and capable of safely and adequately
                heating all habitable rooms, rooms containing a toilet, bathtub or
                shower, communicating corridors within dwelling units, and
                community corridors within rooming houses from rooming units to
                rooms containing a toilet, bathtub or shower.

Regulations, Art. VI, §§ 622, 623, 628(A) & 629(A); Trial Court Rule 1925 Opinion dated August
16, 2022 (Trial Court Opinion) at 2-3 n.2, R.R. at 189a-90a.
       4
           See Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

                                                    3
conducted on May 20, 2020. See Department Decision at 2, RR at 21a; Trial Court
Opinion at 3, RR at 190a.
               Appellants appealed the Penalty on January 30, 2020.5 See Department
Decision at 2, RR at 21a; Trial Court Opinion at 3, RR at 190a. The Department’s
Hearing Officer conducted a hearing on October 16, 2020. See Trial Court Opinion
at 3, RR at 190a. The Hearing Officer issued the Department Decision dismissing
Appellants’ appeals on April 15, 2021. See Trial Court Opinion at 3, RR at 190a;
see also Department Decision. On May 13, 2021, Appellants appealed to the Trial
Court, which affirmed the Department Decision on March 31, 2022, without taking
further evidence. See Trial Court Order; see also Trial Court Opinion at 4, RR at
191a. Appellants timely appealed to this Court. See Trial Court Opinion at 4, RR
at 191a. The parties and Trial Court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925, Pa.R.A.P. 1925, and the matter is now ready for
disposition.

                                           II. Issue
               On appeal,6 Appellants do not challenge the Hearing Officer’s finding
of guilt as to the Violations. See Appellants’ Br. at 4, 8-11. Appellants challenge
only the amount of the Penalty levied as a result of the Violations.                     See id.
Specifically, Appellants claim that the Department, through its Hearing Officer,

       5
         Appellants each filed individual appeals of the Penalty, which the Department’s Hearing
Officer consolidated on January 31, 2020. See Trial Court Opinion at 3, RR at 190a.
       6
         “The standard of review in an appeal of a local agency decision, where [as in the instant
case] the trial court has taken no additional evidence, is whether constitutional rights have been
violated, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether a finding of fact of the agency
necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence.” Meyer v. City of
Pittsburgh Historic Rev. Comm’n, 201 A.3d 929, 935 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019).

                                                4
failed to consider and apply the factors in Article XVI, Section 1605(C) of the
Regulations (Penalty Factors) in determining the Penalty amount. See id. The
Department counters that the Hearing Officer did, in fact, consider and analyze the
Penalty Factors in imposing the Penalty. See Department Br. at 8-13.

                                       III. Discussion
              Article XVI, Section 1605(C) of the Regulations provides:

              Penalty Determination: In determining the amount of civil
              penalties to be assessed, the Director shall consider the
              economic benefit gained by such person by failing to
              comply with the Article, the willfulness of the violation,
              the actual and potential harm to the public health, safety
              and welfare and to the environment, the nature, the
              frequency and magnitude of the violation, and any other
              relevant factors.

Regulations Art. XVI, § 1605(C).7
              We agree with the Trial Court that the Department Decision touched on
all these factors in determining the Penalty. See Trial Court Opinion at 9-11. First,
regarding the economic benefit gained by Appellants as violators, the Hearing
Officer discussed Appellant Rosato’s testimony wherein he explained that
Appellants were aware of the Violations but chose not to make the required repairs
because they did not want to spend any money on the Property, which Appellants
intended to sell. See Department Decision at 6-7, RR 25a-26a. Likewise, Appellant
Rosato’s testimony regarding his desire to not spend money to remediate the
Violations because he intended to sell the Property also evidenced Appellants’

       7
         We observe that the Regulations allow for a fine of daily $2,500 fine for each continued
or repeated violation of the Regulations. See Regulations Art. XVI, § 1605(B).

                                               5
willfulness in allowing the Violations to exist and continue.        See Department
Decision at 7, RR 26a. As the Hearing Officer explained:

             The [Department] informed [Appellants] of the
             [V]iolations at the Property during the inspection on
             August 16, 2019. The [Department] again informed
             Appellants of the outstanding [V]iolations a month later
             during the September 25, 2019 inspection, and then again
             on November 26, 2019, when the [Department] assessed
             the [P]enalty. [Appellant] Rosato admitted at the hearing
             that he received these notices. The evidence clearly
             indicates Appellants were aware of the violations long
             before they finally corrected them in March of 2020.
             Appellants’ dilatoriness in repairing the [V]iolations at
             issue here speaks to willfulness, and justifies the $2500
             [P]enalty.

Department Decision at 7 (internal citations omitted), RR at 26a. Further, the
Hearing Officer discussed the nature and frequency of the Violations by describing
them as “continuing violations present at the Property” that Appellants refused to
rectify until more than six months after receiving notice of the Violations. See
Department Decision at 4-6, RR 23a-25a. Additionally, the Hearing Officer noted
the potentially harmful conditions of the Property upon which the Violations were
based – holes in ceilings and walls, unshielded heating systems, inadequate electrical
systems, and staircases without handrails – in the Department Decision.           See
Department Decision at 1 & 3, RR at 20a & 22a. The potential for harm inherent in
these conditions is self-evident. Accordingly, contrary to Appellants’ suggestion,

                                          6
the Hearing Officer fully discussed the Penalty Factors set forth in Article XVI,
Section 1605(C) of the Regulations in imposing the Penalty.8

                                      IV. Conclusion
              For the reasons above, the Trial Court Order is affirmed.

                                            __________________________________
                                            CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

       8
          We observe that Appellants’ subsequent remediation of the Violations after the
imposition of the Penalty neither excuses the Violations nor justifies a reduction of the Penalty
imposed in response to Appellants’ failure to remediate the Violations prior to the imposition of
the Penalty.

                                               7
        IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michael Rosato and                     :
Augusto Sciullo,                       :
                 Appellants            :
                                       :
           v.                          :
                                       :   No. 446 C.D. 2022
Allegheny County Health Department     :

                                ORDER

           AND NOW, this 19th day of October, 2023, the March 31, 2022 order
of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County is AFFIRMED.

                                     __________________________________
                                     CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge