Court Opinion

ID: 9645453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:25:17.210918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:28.512883
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge McGINLEY.
I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the denial of Joseph John Kachu-rak’s (Kachurak) appeal of the suspension *988of his driving privileges. I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that Joseph John Kachurak’s (Kachurak) appeal was frivolous and that DOT is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees as provided for by Pa.R.A.P. 2744. Under Pa.R.A.P. 2744 an appellate court may award a reasonable counsel fee, “if it determines that an appeal is frivolous or taken solely for delay or that the conduct of the participant against whom costs are to be imposed is dilatory, obdurate, or vexatious.” The majority correctly states that an appeal is frivolous when no justiciable question has presented and the appeal is easily recognized as lacking any merit. Hewitt v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 116 Pa. Cmwlth. 413, 541 A.2d 1183 (1988). While I agree with the majority that Kachurak should not prevail on his appeal, I do not believe that the appeal was frivolous as defined in Hewitt. Further, DOT does not allege that Kachurak’s conduct was dilatory, obdurate, or vexatious. I would deny the request for attorney’s fees under Pa. R.A.P. 2744.