M. Rosato & A. Sciullo v. Allegheny County Health Dept.

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 19, 2023
Docket446 C.D. 2022
StatusUnpublished

This text of M. Rosato & A. Sciullo v. Allegheny County Health Dept. (M. Rosato & A. Sciullo v. Allegheny County Health Dept.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
M. Rosato & A. Sciullo v. Allegheny County Health Dept., (Pa. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

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:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

T. Meyer v. City of Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission
201 A.3d 929 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
M. Rosato & A. Sciullo v. Allegheny County Health Dept., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-rosato-a-sciullo-v-allegheny-county-health-dept-pacommwct-2023.