Summary
holding that, like Rivera v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,832 A.2d 487 (Pa. Super. 2003), when an appellant erroneously files post-trial motions and the trial court erroneously entertains them, this Court "will not penalize a party when its procedural errors are shared equally by those of the trial court . . . Thus, because the trial court treated the post-trial motions as proper under Pa.R.C.P. 227.1, we will accept that treatment in this instance and treat the appeal as properly filed within 30 days of the denial of post-trial motions."
Summary of this case from Young v. S. B. Conrad, Inc.Opinion
Decided: December 13, 2001.
No. 533 MAL 2001, Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2001, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The appeal below was untimely filed and there was no showing of fraud or a breakdown in the court's operation to permit entertaining the appeal. The Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court is REVERSED. See West Penn Power Co. v. Goddard, 333 A.2d 909, 912 (Pa. 1975) (time for taking appeal cannot be extended as matter of grace).
Mr. Justice Zappala and Justice CAPPY dissent.