Opinion
No. 376 C.D. 2013
09-06-2013
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Richard Pataki, Appellant
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Richard Pataki (Property Owner) petitions for review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) finding him guilty of violating the City of Pittsburgh (City) Property Maintenance Code (Code). Finding no error, we affirm.
The City has adopted the International Property Maintenance Code. See PITTSBURGH, PA. CODE §1011.01.
Following a written notice of a Code violation, Property Owner was issued a citation on February 20, 2012, for "failure to remove rubbish [and] garbage from [his] property [and] porch" in violation of Section 307.1 of the Code by Margaret Malle (Inspector Malle), a City building inspector. (Non-Traffic Citation dated February 20, 2012, at 1.) Property Owner was convicted of the violation before the Magisterial District Justice (District Justice) and a fine of $500 was imposed. Property Owner then appealed to the trial court.
Property Owner was cited for violating Section 307.1 of the Code, which provides that "[a]ll exterior property and premises, and the interior of every structure, shall be free from any accumulation of rubbish or garbage." PITTSBURGH, PA. CODE §307.1.
Before the trial court, Inspector Malle testified that in December 2011, after receiving calls regarding garbage throughout Property Owner's property on the Mayor's complaint line, she visited his property. Based on her inspection on December 19, 2011, she issued a notice to Property Owner listing the violations and ordered the conditions be abated, but she received no response and saw no improvement in the condition of the property. She said that she then filed the citation before the District Justice who continued the hearing three times so that Property Owner could abate the violation. When Property Owner failed to do so, the District Justice found Property Owner guilty of violating the Code and he was fined on October 25, 2012. Inspector Malle said that at the time of the hearing before the trial court, the condition had not been abated, and she offered photographs of the property taken the day before the hearing to substantiate her testimony. Inspector Malle finally testified that an overturned garbage can shown in one of the photographs had been in the same place and condition since October 2012.
Property Owner testified that any trash on his porch was not visible from street level because his porch is on the second floor of his house. He also said that due to being disabled, he is unable to move everything himself. He testified that when the District Justice continued the hearings to give him an opportunity to clean the property, he did so, but "things get [sic] dirty again." (Hearing Transcript dated February 12, 2013, at 11.) With regard to the photographs taken by Inspector Malle the day before the hearing before the trial court, Property Owner testified that "high winds ... blew the stuff around on the porch." Id. at 12. Finally, he said that he had made all the improvements to his property suggested by the District Justice each time the hearing was continued, but that the City continued to change the citation, and that the initial citation was not for rubbish on his porch but for debris on his property.
Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court upheld the District Justice's guilty verdict and fine. In response to an argument by Property Owner that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing, the trial court said that the basis for Property Owner's argument was with regard to a hearing in a prior, unrelated case which had no effect on his hearing, so his complaint was without merit. The court further said that while Property Owner raised several issues with regard to his hearing before the District Justice, his hearing before the trial court was de novo, and, therefore, the prior proceeding was irrelevant. Finally, the trial court noted that while Property Owner argued that he had a right to reasonable accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), nothing in that law "allows an individual with a disability to endanger the health and safety of the community by failing to comply with local ordinances." (Trial Court Opinion dated April 16, 2013, at 3.)
In his Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Property Owner states that "[t]he main reason for requesting an appeal, [sic] is that I feel I ... [was] denied a fair and impartial hearing due to Judge Gallo's attitude and behavior" with regard to a party involved in an unrelated hearing held prior to his. (Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal dated April 2, 2013, at 1.) He further says that after the prior hearing, the judge went along with the City Solicitor into his chambers for several minutes, creating the appearance of "collusion." Id.
Our scope of review on appeal from a summary conviction is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed or whether competent evidence supports the findings of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Hall, 692 A.2d 283, 284 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
On appeal, Property Owner argues that he is entitled to extra time to remove any clutter or rubbish and may use his driveway to store his trash under the ADA. At the outset, we note that Property Owner provides no specific citation to any section of the ADA to support his contention that he is excused from complying with local health and safety ordinances. However, even if he had cited some relevant section, he failed to establish that he is disabled and, if so, that his purported condition was not accommodated. See Kenneth S. Hantman, Inc. v. Office of Unemployment Compensation Tax Services, 928 A.2d 448, 452-53 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Under the ADA, a disability is defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual." 42 U.S.C. §12102(2)(A). The only evidence that Property Owner has provided as to a disability is his own testimony that he has difficulty walking up and down stairs, which is not sufficient to make out a claim that his major life activities are substantially limited. Further, even if Property Owner had established a qualifying disability, he has not demonstrated that the alleged discrimination - lack of extra time and leniency in using his driveway to store his trash - was "by reason of [his] disability," Hantman, 928 A.2d at 453, especially given that the District Justice continued the hearing three times in order to allow him to bring his property into compliance.
As to his argument that he did not violate the Code or that he brought his property into compliance prior to his hearing before the trial court, Inspector Malle's testimony established the violation. What Property Owner is asking this Court to do is reweigh the evidence and accept his version of the facts, which, even if we were so inclined, we cannot do because the issue goes to credibility and fact-finding, which are within the sole province of the trial court. See Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254, 1258-59 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
Finally, Property Owner argues that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing because he was not permitted to present or clarify points, and that the judge chastised him for bringing up matters that were before the District Justice, which he argues were relevant to his appeal. He also argues that the City was permitted to introduce new evidence, which emphasizes his claim that the charges against him were continually changed.
The charges against Property Owner did not change because the violation remained the same before the District Justice and the trial court: "failure to remove rubbish [and] garbage from property [and] porch." (Non-Traffic Citation dated February 20, 2012, at 1.) While there may have been additional evidence offered, as stressed by the trial court both during the hearing and in its Pa. R.A.P. 1925 opinion, the hearing was de novo, so the matters before the District Justice were no longer relevant, despite his numerous attempts to discuss those prior proceedings, and new evidence was permitted to develop a record. See Pa. R.Crim. P. 86(f) ("[W]hen a defendant appeals after conviction by an issuing authority in any summary proceeding, upon the filing of the transcript and other papers by the issuing authority, the case shall be heard de novo by the appropriate division of the court of common pleas as the president judge shall direct.).
While Property Owner does not raise the issue in his brief, he argued in his Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal that he was not given a fair hearing because the judge was allegedly condescending to a different defendant in an unrelated hearing preceding his own, which was prejudicial to him. Even if substantiated, the hearing had no bearing on him or his case, and his argument is, therefore, without merit. --------
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court. PER CURIAM ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2013, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dated February 12, 2013, is hereby affirmed.