# St. Vladimir Ukrainian v. Saunders, S. > Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 16, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10846424 ## Case - **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** April 16, 2025 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Stevens - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10846424 ## Opinion text J-S09044-25 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 SAINT VLADIMIR UKRAINIAN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORTHODOX CHURCH OF : PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA : : : v. : : : STANLEY J. SAUNDERS : No. 774 EDA 2024 : Appellant : Appeal from the Order Entered February 6, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 210300071 BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 16, 2025 Stanley J. Saunders appeals from the trial court’s February 6, 2024 order denying his post-trial motion filed following the appointment of the Commonwealth Preservation Alliance, Inc. as conservator in this action proceeding under the Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act, 68 P.S. §§ 1101-1111 (“Act 135”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. By way of background, we note that Appellant is the record owner of a parcel of property located at 500 Independence Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (“the property”). Appellee, Saint Vladimir Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Philadelphia, is a religious entity which maintains a house of worship ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S09044-25 that abuts said property. Since October 30, 2023, the Commonwealth Preservation Alliance, Inc. (hereinafter, “CPA”) has served as the court- appointed conservator of the property. The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows: On March 1, 2021, [Appellee] filed its petition for appointment of a conservator pursuant to [Act 135] for [the property]. After reviewing the petition and instructing [Appellee] to serve all necessary parties, the [trial court] scheduled an evidentiary hearing on June 30, 2021. On June 26, 2021, [Appellant] filed a praecipe to defer pending a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition filed by [Appellant] in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 14, 2021. [Appellant’s] bankruptcy action was dismissed by order dated April 28, 2022, and [Appellee] filed a motion to relist the Act 135 action on January 20, 2023. The [trial court] granted [Appellee’s] motion on April 12, 2023, and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on June 16, 2023 to consider testimony and evidence on the conditions of the property as of the date the petition was filed. All parties were present and represented by counsel at the June 16, 2023 hearing. By order dated June 16, 2023 and docketed on June 20, 2023, the [trial court] found that [Appellee] established the property abandoned and blighted as defined under 68 P.S. § 1105(d), and scheduled a hearing for August 9, 2023, to determine whether the [trial court] would afford [Appellant] the opportunity to pursue conditional relief of the property pursuant to 68 P.S. § 1105(f). In its order, the [trial court] specified the evidence it sought from [Appellant] to substantiate his ability to remediate the property through conditional relief. -2- J-S09044-25 On July 1, 2023, [Appellant] filed a motion for post- trial relief under control no.: 23070101. At the August 9, 2023 hearing, [Appellant] withdrew his motion for post-trial relief by oral motion, requested that the [trial court] afford him the opportunity to pursue conditional relief, but failed to present any evidence to support his request. Following the August 9, 2023 hearing, the [trial court] scheduled another hearing for October 11, 2023 on whether to grant [Appellant’s] request to perform conditional relief, and again specified the evidence it sought from [Appellant] in support of his request. At the October 11, 2023 hearing, [Appellant] failed to present the [trial court] with satisfactory evidence of his capacity to remediate the property. Following the October 11[th] hearing, the [trial court] found [Appellee’s] nominated conservator, [CPA], qualified to serve as conservator, held the matter under advisement to allow the parties to submit photographic evidence of the current condition of the property, and allow [Appellant] additional time to demonstrate capacity to remediate the property. The [trial court] ordered that “[i]f no documentation has been submitted by [Appellant] by or on Thursday, October 26th at 5:00 p.m., [it] may appoint [CPA] as conservator.” On October 30[], 2023, having received nothing from [Appellant], the [trial court] appointed [CPA] as conservator of the property. [Appellant] filed a second motion for post-trial relief on November 10, 2023. The [trial court] requested briefs from each party on whether [Appellant’s] motion should be granted, extended the deadlines for briefs at [Appellant’s] request by order dated December 19, 2023, held oral argument on February 5, 2024, and denied [Appellant’s] motion at the conclusion of oral argument by order entered February 6, 2024. Trial court opinion, 5/17/24 at 2-4 (footnotes and extraneous capitalization omitted; some brackets in original). -3- J-S09044-25 On February 29, 2024, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s February 6, 2024 order denying his motion for post-trial relief. On March 7, 2024, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal within 21 days, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).1 On May 24, 2024, Appellee filed an application to quash Appellant’s appeal as taken from a non-appealable interlocutory order. On June 28, 2024, this Court filed a per curiam order denying Appellee’s application to quash without prejudice as to raise those arguments before the merits panel. Preliminarily, we find that the instant appeal is properly before us pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(2), which permits an interlocutory appeal as of right from order an affecting the possession or control of property. This Court has recently held that an appeal of an order appointing a conservator or granting conditional relief under Section 1105(f)(1) of Act 135 is properly taken from the order denying post-trial motions, pursuant to Rule 311(a)(2). Oceanview Prop. Mgmt. & Recovery Servs., LLC v. Baker, 319 A.3d 508, 511-512 (Pa.Super 2024). The Oceanview Court explained that an appeal from the order denying post-trial motions is proper because such an order effectively affirms the trial court’s previous order affecting the possession or control of property. Id. at 511, n.4. Accordingly, we now turn to the claims raised by Appellant on appeal. ____________________________________________ 1 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. -4- J-S09044-25 Appellant raises the following issues for our review: I. Whether the record lacks sufficient admissible evidence to sustain the trial court’s findings and holding that [Appellee] established that [Appellant’s] property has been abandoned for at least twelve months as of [Appellee’s] March 1, 2021 filing of its Act 135 petition, when the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by [Appellee] was incompetent, irrelevant, speculative, unauthenticated, largely uncorroborated hearsay and thereby inadmissible and which did not meet either the Section 1105(d)(1) requirements to establish “abandonment” or not being “legally occupied” as defined in Scioli[2], and thereby the trial court erred in granting [Appellee’s] Act 135 petition predicated thereon[?] II. Whether the record lacks sufficient admissible evidence of record to support the trial court’s finding that [Appellee] met it burden of establishing that [Appellant’s] property was blighted within the meaning of Section 1105(d)(5)(i), (ii), (iv) and (vii) for the appointment of a conservator and thereby the trial court also committed errors of law in admitting, over the objections of [Appellant], the irrelevant, incompetent, unauthenticated, uncorroborated hearsay and otherwise inadmissible testimonial and documentary evidence presented by [Appellee] and predicated its decision granting [Appellee’s] Act 135 petition thereon[?] Appellant’s brief at 4 (extraneous capitalization omitted). Our appellate role in cases arising from nonjury trial verdicts is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed error in any ____________________________________________ 2 Scioli Turco, Inc. v. Prioleau, 207 A.3d 346 (Pa.Super. 2019). -5- J-S09044-25 application of the law. The findings of fact of the trial judge must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the verdict of the jury. We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner. We will reverse the trial court only if its findings of fact are not supported by competent evidence in the record or if its findings are premised on an error of law. However, [where] the issue ... concerns a question of law, our scope of review is plenary. The trial court’s conclusions of law on appeal originating from a non-jury trial are not binding on an appellate court because it is the appellate court’s duty to determine if the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts of the case. Gamesa Energy USA, LLC v. Ten Penn Ctr. Assocs., L.P., 181 A.3d 1188, 1191–1192 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted; brackets in original), affirmed, 217 A.3d 1227 (Pa. 2019). Upon review, we find that Appellant’s claims on appeal warrant no relief. The trial court addressed each of Appellant’s allegations of error in its comprehensive, 46-page opinion and concluded that they are without merit. We find that the trial court’s conclusions are supported by competent evidence and are free of legal error. Specifically, we agree with the trial court that “the [p]roperty was not legally occupied pursuant to [Section] 1105(d)(1) as the term is defined in [Scioli].” See trial court opinion, 5/17/24 at 8-13. We also agree with the trial court that Appellee satisfied “at least three of list of nine enumerated conditions” for appointment of a conservatorship under 68 P.S. § 1105(d)(5). See id. at 14-20. -6- J-S09044-25 Accordingly, we adopt the aforementioned portions of the well-reasoned May 17, 2024 opinion of the Honorable Ann M. Butchart as our own for purposes of this appellate review. We hereby direct the parties to attach the trial court opinion to this Memorandum in all future proceedings. Order affirmed. Date: 4/16/2025 -7- I 03/28/2025 10:35 Circulated 03/2802025 10.35 AM I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION SAINT VLADIMIR UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT PHILADELPHIA PlllLADELPRlA 774 774 EDA EDA 2024 2024 Petitioner, V. Trial Court Docket: STANLEY J. SAUNDERS March Term, 2021 Respondent No. No, 00071 OPINION BUTCHART, BUTCIHART, JJ. May 17, 2024 Saunders ("Respondent"), Stanley J. Saunders ("Respondent"), files this appeal of the Court's Orders dated June 16, August August 9, October 11, and October 30, 2023. Respondent's interlocutory appeal was filed without authorization under the Respondent's Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Respondent Respondent did not appeal a a final Order, did not permission, and did not file as of Right from Interlocutory Orders pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. seek permission, Pa.R.A.P 311. The The Court respectfully respectfully requests requests that that this this Honorable Honorable Court quash the the appeal and and remand remand for for proceedings. See further proceedings. See Garzone • v. Kelly, 539 539 A.2d A.2d 1292 1292 at at 1295-96 1295-96 (Pa. (Pa. Super 1991). 1991). Further, Respondent Respondent has failed to provide provide the Court with an adequate adequate Statement of Errors Complained 1925(b). Complained of on Appeal as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) OPFLD-Sa M Madimh Uk-d-a Orthodox Church Of Phiiade 11111111111111111111111111111 III III SO :01 Wd L1 $0·0 L AH! 21030007100104 21030007 100i04 I ' ! PURSUANTTO COPIES SENT PURSUANT Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) TO PA.R.CP, D. DRAYTON 05/17/2024 236lb) D. I. I PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY HISTORY On March 1, 2021, Petitioner Saint Vladimir Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Philadelphia ("Petitioner") (Petitioner") filed its Petition for the appointment of aaConservator pursuant pursuant to the Abandoned and Blighted Blighted Property Conservatorship Act Act at 68 P.S. $§ 1101 at 68P.S. 1H0I et seq. (the "Act" or seq. (the "Act 135") 135) for the the Property Property owned by Respondent Respondent at at 500 Independence Street, Philadelphia, 500 Independence Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, 19126 19126 (the (the"Property"). Property") After reviewing the Petition and instructing instructing Petitioner to serve all necessary parties, the necessary parties', Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing Count hearing on on June 30, 2021. 2 30, 2021 OnOn June 26, 26, 2021, 2021, Respondent Respondent filed filed aa Praecipe to Defer pending pending aa. Chapter 13 bankruptcy bankruptcy petition filed by by Respondent Respondent in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the the Eastern Easter District District of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania on on June June 14, 14, 2021. Respondent's Respondent's bankruptcy action was dismissed by Order dated April28, April 28, 2022', 2022 3,and Petitioner filed filed aaMotion to Relist Relist the Act 135 the Aet 135 Action Action on January January 20, 2023. 2023. The Court Granted Petitioner's Motion Motion on April April 12, 2023, and scheduled an evidentiary hearing hearing on June June 16, 16, 2023 to testimony and to consider testimony and evidence on on the conditions conditions of the the Property as of the the date the Petition Petition was was filed. filed."4 All Parties were present and and represented by counsel at the June 16, 2023 hearing. hearing.5 By By Order dated June 16, 2023 and docketed on June 20, 2023, the Court found that Petitioner established the Property abandoned and blighted blighted as defined under as defied under 68 P.S. P.S. §$ 1105(d), 1105(d), and and scheduled aahearing hearing for August 9, 2023, to determine whether the Court would afford Respondent the opportunity to pursue Conditional Relief of the Property Property pursuant pursuant to 68 P.S. § $ 'See see March 26, 2021 Count 26,2021 Court Order Order. 2 See April See April 28, 2021 Court Order 2021 Count Order. 3See Petitioner's Motion to Relist Act 135 Action Following Dismissal of Bankruptcy 'See Bankruptcy Case 4 See April 12, 2023 Court Order, See April 12,2023 Order. Attorney, Robert L Attomey, 5 appearance was recorded on June 16,2023 L Simmons' entry of appearance 16, 2023 at 5:22 p.m. p.m 22 1105(f). 1105()."6 In its Order, the Court specified Respondent to substantiate specified the evidence it sought from Respondent ability to his ability to remediate the Property remediate the Property through Conditional Relief. through Conditional Relief On July On July 1, 2023, Respondent I, 2023, Respondent filed filed aaMotion Motion for for Post-Trial Post-Trial Relief Relief under Control No.: under Control No.: 23070101. At At the August 9, 2023 the August 2023 hearing, hearing, Respondent Respondent withdrew withdrew his his Motion for for Post-Trial Post-Trial Relief Relief by oral motion, by motion, requested requested that the Court afford him the opportunity opportunity to pursue pursue Conditional Relief, any evidence to support but failed to present any support his request. request. Following Following the August hearing, August 9, 2023 hearing, the Court scheduled another hearing hearing for October 11, 2023 on whether to grant Respondent's Respondent's request request to perform Conditional Relief, to perform and again Relief, and again specified specified the the evidence it it sought from from Respondent support of his request.? Respondent in support request.' At the October 11, 2023 hearing, hearing, Respondent Respondent failed to present present the Court with satisfactory evidence of his capacity to remediate the Property. Following the October 11 II hearing, hearing, the Court found Petitioner's nominated Conservator, Commonwealth Preservation Alliance, qualified qualified to serve as Conservator, held the matter under advisement to allow the parties parties to submit photographic photographic evidence of the current condition of the Property, Property, and allow Respondent allow additional time Respondent additional to demonstrate time to demonstrate capacity capacity to to remediate remediate the the Property.$ The Court Property." The Court ordered that "[i]f no documentation has been submitted by Respondent Respondent by or on Thursday, October 26th 5:00 p.m., 26 at 500 p.m., [it] may appoint [it] may appoint Commonwealth Preservation Alliance as 30th, 2023, Conservator." On October 30", 2023, having having received nothing nothing from Respondent, Respondent, the Court appointed Commonwealth Preservation Alliance as Conservator of the Property. appointed Property.9 Respondent Respondent filed aasecond second Motion Motion for for Post Trial Relief on November November 10, 10, 2023. 2023. The The Court requested requested briefs briefs from party on whether Respondent's from each party Respondent's Motion Motion should be be granted,lo granted," This provision +Ti 6 provision of Act Aet 135 13$ allows the Court to permit permit the owner to to remedy the blighting conditions of the Property "the owner represents if the represents that the conditions, conditions, violations or nuisance or emergency condition will be abated in in aa reasonable period." period." 68 P.S. $§ 1105( 1105(f). See August 7See 7 9, 2023 Count August 9,2023 Court Order. 8 See October 11, See 2023 Court Order. 11,2023 Order. See October 30, See 9 2023 Count 30,2023 Court Order. see io See November 30, 2023 Court 30,2023 Court Order. Order 3 3 extended the the deadlines for briefs briefs at at Respondent's request request by Order dated December December 19, 19, 2023, held argument on February held oral argument February 5, 2024, and denied Respondent's Respondent's Motion Motion at at the the conclusion of oral argument oral argument by Order entered by Order entered on on February 6, 2024. February 6, 2024. On February February 29, 2024, Respondent Respondent filed filed with the Court its Notice of Appeal Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania Superior Pennsylvania from the order entered in this matter on February February 6, 2024. On March 7, 2024, the Court Ordered Respondent Respondent to file a a concise statement of errors complained of appeal (" on appeal 1925(b) statement"). On March 27, 2024, this Court entered an Order to stay the (1925(b) matter pending pending this appeal appeal and required Respondent Respondent post of $10,000 post an appeal bond of $ 10,000 within thirty thirty (30) days (30) days of of the Order. 11 Respondent the Order.' Respondent filed his 1925(b) filed his Statement on 1925() Statement on March March 29, 29, 2024. See Attachment 1, Respondent's Attachment I, Respondent's 1925(b) 1925(b) Statement. II. II. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION The Abandoned The and Blighted Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act, Property Conservatorship 68 P.S. §$ 1H0I, Act, 68PS. 1101, et etseq. seq. ("Act 135"), enacted in 2008, provides (Aet provides aamechanism to transform abandoned and blighted properties productive reuse. 68 P.S. §$ 1102. Following an evidentiary hearing on the merits properties into productive of the Petition, aaCourt may appoint aaconservator to bring may appoint property into municipal bring the property municipal code compliance when an owner has failed to do so. Id; see also In re compliance re Conservatorship Proceeding Conservatorship Proceeding in in Rem Ren by by Germantown Conservancy, Inc,, Germantown Conservancy Inc., 995 A.2d 451, 453 453 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010). 2010) Alternatively, Alternatively, the Court may may also permit permit the owner to remediate the property property by granting by granting Conditional Relief. Relief. 68 P.S. P.S. §$ 1105() 1105(f). In enacting enacting Act 135, the Legislature Legislature recognized recognized that "[s]ubstandard, "[s]ubstandard, deteriorating deteriorating and abandoned [structures] abandoned [structures] are aapublic public safety threat" and, if not rehabilitated, are are "... likely to see See March 27,2024 11 27, 2024 Count Court Order Order. 44 remain abandoned abandoned and further 68 P.S. §$ 1102. further deteriorate." 68P.S. 1102. Act Aet 135 135 provides provides that "[i]f the that "[ilf the owner of a [building] [building] fails fails to to maintain maintain the property property in in accordance with applicable municipal with the applicable municipal codes codes or standards of public public welfare welfare or safety, it it is is in the the best best interest of of the the Commonwealth, the municipality municipality and the community for the court, pursuant the community pursuant to the provisions provisions of this this act, to appoint aa to appoint conservator to make the necessary necessary improvements[.]" improvements[.]" Id. (emphasis added). "Court" is defined (emphasis added). under Act Aet 135 as "[t]he appropriate count "[the appropriate court of common pleas." P,S. $§ 1103. pleas." 68 P.S. 1. I. Respondent's Complained of on Appeal Respondent's Statement of Errors Complained identify any Appeal fails to identify any issues with sufficient specificity specificity to allow for meaningful meaningful review. "It is axiomatic that when It when aacourt has has to to guess guess what issues issues a a defendant defendant is is appealing, appealing, that that is not enough for meaningful meaningful review. Similarly, Similarly, when aadefendant fails adequately to identify identify in aaconcise manner the issues sought to be pursued pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation preparation of a a legal analysis which is pertinent pertinent to those issues. In other words, words, a a concise statement which is too vague vague to allow the court to identify identify the issues raised on appeal appeal is the functional equivalent equivalent of no concise statement at all." Hassel [Hassel v. y. Franzi, 2019 PA Super 109, 207 949 (2019) A.3d 939, 949 citing Commonwealth (2019) citing Commonwealth v. v,Butler, 756 A.2d A.2d 55, 57 57 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2000), affirmed, 571 Pa. 441, 812 A.2d 631 631 (2002); (2002); Lineberger Lineberger v_. y, Wyeth, Weth, 894 A.2d 141, 148 (Pa.Super. 141, 148 (Pa.Super. 2006). 2006) In Commonwealth y, v. Pukowsky, Pukowsky, an appellant appealed aatrial court ruling appellant appealed ruling that limited the testimony witness. Commonwealth_Pukowsky, testimony of appellant's witness. Commonwealth v. Pukowsky, 2016 PA Super 201, 147 A.3d 1236 (2016). 1229, 1236 Superior Court held that appellant (2016). The Superior appellant waived its argument argument as to this ruling ruling where appellant failed to to make specific reference reference to any testimony testimony of its its witness witness that was was improperly improperly limited. Id. Id. Instead, Instead, Appellant Appellant merely merely stated in in its 1925(b) Statement its 1925() that "[the Statement that "[t]he limiting the testimony Court erred in limiting Appellant's [witness], testimony of Appellant's [witness], as both aafact witness and an 55 expert witness. Id. expert [d, Said limitations were highly highly prejudicial prejudicial to Appellant, Appellant, and violative of his due process rights." process Id. Several objections rights." [d. objections to the witness' testimony testimony were raised during during trial, trial, some of which were sustained, forcing guess as to which objections forcing the Court to guess objections formed the basis of the appeal. Id. appeal. Id. v. Hansley, In Commonwealth y. Hanslev, an appellant appellant waived arguments arguments that it failed to "properly "properly develop" in develop" in its its 1925(b) statement. Com. 1925(b) statement. Com. v. Hanslev, 201I v, [Hansley, 2011 PA Super 129, PA Super 129, 24 24 A.3d 410, 415 A.3d 410, 415 (2011). Appellant's (2011). Appellant's 1925(b) statement argued, variously, 1925(b) statement that the variously, that the Court Court "erred in permitting permitting [Appellee's counsel] [Appellee's counsel] to question [Appellant] to question [Appellant] about about things things that that went went beyond beyond the the scope of the scope of the direct examination," and and "in "in permitting permitting [Appellee's counsel] to [Appellee's counsel] constantly make to constantly make comments questioning the questioning the truthfulness of [Appellant's] truthfulness of [Appellant's] testimony" testimony" without specific reference without specific to the reference to the notes notes of testimony. Id. testimony Id Here, Respondent Respondent appeals evidentiary rulings rulings made over the course of three hearings. hearings Respondent Respondent never never references the testimony references the testimony of of any any witness, witness, let alone any let alone any Respondent's Respondent's objections objections which were overruled or any Petitioner's objections objections which were sustained. Instead, Respondent Respondent argues in his 1925(b) 1925(b) Statement that the Court Court "erred and abused its discretion in summarily summarily overruling Respondent's overruling objections to Respondent's objections to the hearsay, double the hearsay, double hearsay and otherwise hearsay and otherwise impermissible impermissible oral testimony and admission testimony and admission of documents," which of documents," which rulings rulings violate "the Rules violate "the of Evidence Rules of and Evidence and law," law," "Rules of Court, "Rules of Court, laws of the laws of Commonwealth of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania and and the the equal equal protection and protection and due due process process requirements of the requirements of the Pennsylvania and U.S. Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions." Resp't's Rule Constitutions." Resp't's Rule 1925(b) 1925(b) Statement of Statement of Errors Errors Complained of on Complained of on Appeal at 3, Appeal at ¶ 3, 4. In In an an effort to to particularize particularize his his objections, Respondent objections, Respondent provided provided "particulars" "particulars" numbered numbered "a" through "h" "a" through "h" as as subheadings subheadings to to Respondent's Respondent's paragraph paragraph 4. Id. Id, These These "particulars" "particulars" include statements such include statements such as: as: "allowed "allowed Petitioner's attorney to engage Petitioner's attomey engage in in leading and testimonial narratives leading and narratives in presenting questions to presenting questions witnesses... throughout several witnesses...throughout several hearings from June hearings from June 16, 2023 through 16, 2023 through October 30, 2023;" October 30, 2023;" 66 "allowed Petitioner to present... hearsay and otherwise present. .hearsay otherwise inadmissible testimony and/or documents that were not authenticated and/or corroborated as required under the Rules of Evidence;" Petitioner... to "allowed Petitioner. to present grossly prejudicial present grossly hearsay and otherwise inadmissible prejudicial hearsay inadmissible testimony testimony documents;" "unduly and documents;" "unduly restricted and/or prevented prevented Respondent from cross-examining Petitioner's witnesses;" denied "denied Respondent's Respondent's requests requests for an order directing Petitioner's Petitioner'g witnesses to provide provide Respondent with aacopy of the documents in their possession they were testifying testifying to but which they conveniently did not bring bring to the hearing, yet the court allowed Petitioner's witnesses to testified as to the contents of those hearsay hearsay documents... [sic];" and documents...[sic];" "scheduled and conducted serial status hearings, hearings, that were conducted in aamanner allowing Petitioner to supplement the June 16, 2023 record record..... in .i n a a manner contrary to the Rules of Evidence, Evidence, [etc.]." [etc.]." Id. Had Respondent identified the specific rules, codes, or statutes the Court's rulings rulings specific testimony violated, the Court would still be left without reference to specific testimony which Respondent Respondent improperly allowed, or specific argues was improperly specific questions questions on cross-examination that Respondent Respondent argues were improperly improperly precluded. The Court is tasked with scrutinizing scrutinizing the notes of testimony testimony from each each of the the "several hearings hearings from June 16, I6, 2023 through through October 30, 2023" to identify identify which rulings Respondent could be referring referring to when he argues that his Constitutional rights rights have have been been violated by by this this Court. This is precisely the winnowing is precisely winnowing which Appellant Appellant is is required required to provide provide in his 1925(b) statement. Failure to do so is precisely precisely why why Superior Superior Court has found similarly undeveloped arguments to be waived. The Court has The Court endeavored to has endeavored to address address the the substance of Appellant's substance of Appellant's 1925(b) 1925(b) Statement. Statement The Court has looked to the arguments arguments made in in the February February 5, 2024 oral argument argument on given that the Respondent's Motion for Post Trial Relief. Arguments on this Motion are relevant given written content of Respondent's Respondent's Motion for Post Trial Relief is virtually virtually identical to his 1925(b) 1925(b) 77 ,---------------------------------------------- 1 Statement. Accordingly, engineer" the basis for Respondent's Accordingly, the Court will "reverse engineer" Respondent's appeal appeal from Respondent's Respondent's stated bases for objection objection and/or general general complaint complaint during during the hearings hearings themselves in themselves order to in order discern to to discern to the the specific laws, codes, specific laws, codes, statutes, statutes, legal legal rights or legal rights or legal principles principles Respondent claims the Court violated. that Respondent violated 2. This Court did not err in finding that the Property was not legally legally occupied occupied pursuant to 68 P.S. $§1105(d)(1) as the term is defined in SeioliTureo, Scioli Turco, Ie., Inc. v. Prioleau. Once the court adjudicating adjudicating an Act Aet 135 petition petition is satisfied that that service has been perfected upon all Respondents perfected upon and lienholders, Respondents and an evidentiary lienholders, an evidentiary hearing hearing is scheduled on is scheduled on the the merits of the merits of petition. Section the petition. Section 55of of the the Abandoned and Blighted Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act Property Conservatorship Act requires requires that the Court Count find, among among other things, things, that "the building building has not been legally occupied legally occupied for at for at least the the previous previous twelve twelve months" before it months" before it can can appoint appoint a a Conservator. 68 P.S. Conservator. 68 PS. §$ 1105(d)(1). 1105()0D). In Scioli Turco, Inc. In Scioli v. Prioleau, Inc, v, Prioleau, the Superior Court the Superior Court affirmed affirmed the the trial court's finding trial court's finding that that the petitioner petitioner failed to prove prove that the property had not been legally legally occupied, occupied, but disagreed disagreed with the lower court's the lower court's interpretation of the interpretation of the term "legally occupied." term "legally occupied." See See Scioli Turco, Inc. Scioli Turco, Inc. v. v. Prioleau, Prioleau, 2019 2019 PA PA Super 98, 207 Super 98, 207 A.3d A.3d 346 346 (2019). (2019). Although Although the Superior Court the Superior Court declined declined to to disturb disturb the the finding that the respondent trial court's finding respondent regularly spent nights regularly spent nights at the Property, Property, it found that "legally occupied" as "legally occupied" as used used in the Act in the Act does does not not mean merely that mean merely that the the property property is is lived lived in by its in by its permission. Id. owner or by someone with the owner's permission. Id. at 351. Rather, Act "unambiguously Rather, the Act "unambiguously requires proof that the building building in question question has not been lived in during during the preceding preceding twelve months in conformity months conformity with the laws regulating with the regulating the right occupancy (emphasis right to occupancy (emphasis added)." added)." Id. at Id. at 353. "This showing 353,"This showing may may be made with evidence that no person person has resided in the building...or building ... or 88 I' I that a a statute or code provision provision prohibits any person from living in in the structure legally." Id Id. However, the Superior Superior Court declined to overturn the trial court's finding that the Property Property had been legally occupied. occupied. See [d. Id. Though the petitioner in Scioli Turco v. Prioleau y,Prioleau argued on appeal that the property could not be legally occupied because the building was argued designated unsafe, the only support for its argument in the evidentiary record came from the designated testimony testimony of Ryan Ryan Spak, Spak, aaneighbor neighbor "who runs Project Rehab, aanonprofit program that had been monitoring monitoring the Property Property since 2013." Id. Id. at 348. Mr. Mr. Spak testified that living in the property would "`violate would "violate every building code the City has,"' has," but Mr. Spak was not qualified as an expert and did not rely rely upon upon any official determination of uninhabitability, and Petitioner ultimately presented presented no evidence that an official had prohibited occupancy because of code violations. [d. Id. Here, Petitioner presented presented evidence that the Property was designated an-unsafe an unsafe structure by the Department by Licenses & Department of Licenses & Inspections. Inspections. At the June 16 I6 hearing, Petitioner introduced Exhibits 5-017, 5091-094, and 6 the testimony of code inspector Thomas Rybakowski 6through the ("Inspector Rybakowski"). ("Inspector Rybakowski"). Notes of Testimony, June 16, 2023 2023 ("N.T. (N.T. I") at 37, 51-52 and 58. Exhibit 5-017 is an Initial Notice of Violation and Order: Unsafe Building assessed on April, 6, nd Order. 2018, declaring that "This Property has been declared Unsafe by the Department of Licenses and Inspections," Inspections," explaining that "[a]n unsafe structure is is one that is found to be dangerous to the life, life, health, property property or safety...of safety ... of the occupants of the structure" and identifying the location of the structure as "entire site," specifically the specifically "roofing "roofing or roofing roofing components... or any portion of the components...or roof framing ... with signs framing.. signs of deterioration...incapable deterioration ... incapable of supporting all nominal loads." Pet'r's Ex. 5.017 Ex. 5-017. The Notice informs the property property owner that he has "the right to appeal these violations within five five (5) days for Unsafe or Imminently Dangerous violations." Id. Exhibit 5- 091-094 is aViolation Notice and Order to Correct; is a Correct: Unsafe dated January 15, I5, 2022, which 5-091- identifies the conditions in violation as the "main roof and soffit collapsing." Pet'r's Ex. 5.-09L- 9 9 --- -- --------- 094. As the April April 2018 violation regarding regarding the condition of the roof remained open at the time of the January January 2022 violation, the Court found found that the condition of the roof described in in April April 2018 was unchanged unchanged as of January 2022. The January 2022 violation remained open at the time time evidentiary hearing. of the evidentiary hearing. N.T. at 51. 5L. Exhibit 66includes photographs taken during the January 2022 inspection 2022 of the inspection of the Property. Property. Inspector Rybakowski Inspector R ybakowski testified testified that concern [was] that "the area of concern [was] the structural members members of the soffit retum return that is is part part of the main roof assembly[,]" assembly[,]" which was was "unsafe because the structural members were open to the elements...[tJhey elements... [t]hey showed signs of wood rot," which condition was depicted in was depicted in Exhibit Exhibit 6-001. Id. [d. at at 55-56, 55-56, 59. 59. Though Inspector Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski acknowledged that some repair repair work had apparently apparently been performed performed on the roof, "it has not been signed off by aadesign signed design professional. To the department... the repairs have not been completed." department...the Id. 66. The Department [d. at 66. Department of Licenses Licenses && Inspections Inspections "want[s] to make sure that that [the [the roof] is able to support nominal loads. At At [the [the January 2022 inspection, inspection, [Respondent] [Respondent] was spoken to and was asked to provide provide an engineer's report." Id. 55. Id, at 55, Though no official notice to vacate the premises premises was posted posted at the Property, Property, the Pennsylvania Administrative Code states that "[w "[w]hen [hen aabuilding code official determines the existence of an unsafe condition, the building building code official shall order the vacating of the building or structure," building structure," and that the notice to the property owner "shall contain the order to vacate property owner the the building, building, structure or seal the the equipment out of service and state the the unsafe unsafe conditions." 34 Pa. Code §$ 403.84(b), Pa. Code 403.84(b), (c). (c). It appears from It appears from Inspector Inspector Rybakowski's testimony that, Rybakowski's testimony that, rather than rather than order Respondent Respondent to vacate the building, building, Respondent Respondent was given the opportunity to appeal appeal the initial notice of violation, and then was personally personally instructed by by the onsite code enforcement inspector and Inspector Rybakowski himself on the specific area of the roof that was unsafe and what was needed needed to comply with the to comply the Department of Licenses Licenses && Inspections. Inspections. N.T. N.T. I I at at 55, 60, 64; 10 10 Pet'r's Ex. 5-017. It is Ex. 5.017.It is uncontroverted uncontroverted that the the Property Property was was deemed deemed unsafe. unsafe. Per Per the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Administrative Code, Code, an an unsafe building building cannot be legally occupied. legally occupied Respondent Respondent argues argues that because he he "has continually continually resided in his Property, Property, he met met the requirements requirements of occupancy of the Property," Property," and makes note that "there was was [nothing] [nothing] issued by L & Ito [Respondent] L&Ito [Respondent ] telling telling him that he could no longer longer occupy occupy the premises premises and to evacuate the premises." the premises." Notes of Testimony, Notes of Testimony, February February 5, 2024 2024 ("N.T. IV") at (NT.IV") at 5, 8. Further, Further, Respondent Respondent "Petitioner did not offer anything other than this speculation on the part argues that Petitioner Mr. part of Mr Passyn Passyn [neighbor] [neighbor] that Mr. Saunders did not occupy the Property." Property." Andrew Passyn, Passyn, the President of the of Board of the Board of Stewards Stewards of of Saint Saint Vladimir's Church ("Passyn"), Vladimir's Church (Passyn"), who works in who works in the Church the Church immediately immediately next door to Respondent, Respondent, testified that Respondent was not living at the Property, impossible "even that it was impossible "even [to] [to] get get on the Property Property to access the doors," but that after the Petition was filed, he began seeing seeing Respondent Respondent at the Property Property "periodically; though though he was not there all the there all the time ... when we time..when we had had record record cold in December, cold back in December, he he was not there was not there for weeks on for weeks on end." N.T. I I at 97-98. Passyn's at 97.98. testimony was Passyn's testimony was rebutted by Respondent's Respondent's witness, witness, another another neighbor "who credibly neighbor credibly testified that...she. that... she....was was seeing seeing [Respondent] [Respondent].....almost almost every every day. There was no testimony whatsoever offered by Petitioner that rebuts or otherwise contradicts that Id testimony." Id. testimony." Findings Findings of fact made during during an evidentiary hearing hearing in an Act Aet 135 matter, including credibility determinations credibility determinations of of witnesses witnesses made made by by the the lower court, are lower court, afforded great are afforded great deference. deference. In In G & G Invs., LLC g_&Glmys., v. Phillips Simmons Real LL.Cy.Phillips Real Est. Holdings, Holdings, the standard of review review was described as follows: as follows Our review in Our in a a non jury case is limited to non-jury to whether the the findings of thethe trial court are supported by supported competent evidence and whether the by competent the trial trial court committed error in in the the application application of of law. law. We We must must grant grant the the court's findings findings of of fact fact the the same same weight weight and and effect effect as the verdict of aajury jury and, accordingly, may accordingly, may disturb the non jury non-jury verdict only only if the court's findings court's are unsupported findings are unsupported by by competent evidence or competent evidence or the the court court committed committed legal legal error that affected the outcome of the trial. It is not the role of an appellate appellate court to pass pass 11 on the credibility of witnesses; hence we will not substitute our judgment judgment for that of the fact[-finder Thus, fact[-]finder. Thus, the the test test we apply is we apply is not whether we not whether we would would have have reached reached the the same same result on the evidence presented, presented, but rather, after due consideration of the evidence which the trial court found credible, whether the trial court could have reasonably reached its conclusion. conclusion G & G Invs., LLCy. G&GInvs,LLC v. Phillips Phillips Simmons Real Est. Holdings, [Holdings, LLC, LLC, 2018 PA Super 80,183 Super 80, 183 A:3d A.3d 478 (2018) 472, 478 (2018) quoting Agostinelli Agostinelli v. v. Edwards, Edwards, 98 A.3d A.3d 695, 704 704 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal 2014), appeal denied, 631 denied, 631 Pa. Pa. 734, 113 A.3d 734, 113 A.3d 278 278 (2015) (2015) (internal citations omitted). (internal citations omitted). Though the the record does not not disclose disclose any instance in in which Respondent Respondent was affirmatively was affirmatively instructed to vacate the premises, premises, the Court's finding that the premises premises was not legally occupied legally occupied during the during twelve months the twelve prior to months prior to the the filing of the filing of the Petition Petition is supported by is supported by sufficient evidence. sufficient evidence. The The Property was the Property was the subject of an subject of an active active unsafe unsafe violation violation dating dating back to April back to 6, April 6th, 2018 at at the the time time of filing. N.T. I I at 37. An unsafe structure is is "one that is found to be dangerous dangerous to the life, life, health, health, property, property, or safety safety of the the public occupants of the public or the occupants the structure by by not providing providing minunum safeguards to minimum safeguards to protect... occupants... because such protect...occupants...because such [structure] contains[s] ... such faulty [structure] contains[s]...such faulty construction or unsafe foundation that partial possible." Id. According partial or complete collapse is possible." According to the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Administrative Administrative Code, aadeclaration that aastructure is is unsafe unsafe must must be accompanied by accompanied by aanotice to vacate. 34 Pa. Code Code §$ 403.84(b), 403.84(b), (c). (e). Under Pennsylvania Pennsylvania law, law, the structure structure cannot be legally occupied. be legally occupied. Nevertheless, the Court considered the fact that the Property Property was never posted posted with aa notice to vacate, or that any notice to vacate that may have been posted posted was not included in j Petitioner's evidence, Petitioner's evidence, as as well as the well as testimony of the testimony of Respondent's witness, Joan Elliott. Respondent's witness, Elliott. Ms. Elliott, Elliott, aaneighbor of Respondent's, neighbor of testified that Respondent's, testified that she she often often saw Respondent coming saw Respondent coming and and going, going, that that they they "talked very often," and that she has "never known him to be aanuisance." talked nuisance" N.T. N.T, I I at 124-125. Elliott also testified that she lives four houses down and across the street from Respondent, Respondent, and has only observed has only observed his his Property Property from the street. from the street. Id. at 128. [d. at 12 In In weighing weighing the credibility of Ms. the credibility Me. Elliott's testimony, testimony, and and whether it is whether it is probative of the the fact of Respondent's Respondent's continuous residence in the Property, the Court considered the conflicting testimony testimony of Passyn. Id. at 91. Passyn. [d. 9L. Passyn Passyn testified that he knew Respondent Respondent did not reside at the Property "by personal Property "by personal observation," that he is there three to four times a aweek, and that the Church has Church has surveillance cameras. [d, surveillance cameras. Id. at at 98. 98. A A few months after few months after the Church filed the Church filed the the Petition, Petition, Passyn Passyn testified "[w]e started testified that "[wle started seeing seeing more more and more of Respondent," Respondent," that that "[h]e "[hJe was there periodically, periodically, but not all but not all the the time ... for example, time...for example, when we had when we the record cold had the cold back back in in December, December, he he was not not there there for for weeks weeks on end." end," Id. Though Though he frequently frequently observed Respondent Respondent at at the the Property, Property, it was Passyn's Passyn's belief that Respondent Respondent used the Property Property to store personal personal property property which filled both the interior and exterior of the Property Property to the point that there were no functioning points functioning points of of ingress ingress or or egress. egress. Id. at at 93-94. 93-94. During Petitioner's During opening statement, Petitioner's opening statement, counsel for for Petitioner Petitioner argued that that "the evidence is is going to going to show show that the Property that the Property was was not not aaresidence...but residence... but that that [Respondent] has periodically [Respondent] has periodically stayed at stayed at the the Property." Property." N.T. N.T. IIat at 8. 8. The The Court Court found found that that the weight of the weight of the evidence supports the evidence supports this this interpretation. interpretation. Petitioner's depict aaproperty Petitioner's exhibits depict property so congested congested with with debris and scrap material and scrap material that it is implausible implausible that aaperson person could have traversed through through it, let alone habitually habitually resided there, without great great difficulty. difficulty. Further, the condition of the roof of the Property Property was declared to be unsafe, be rendering the unsafe, rendering the Property Property not not legally occupiable as legally occupiable as a matter of a matter of law law according according to to the the Pennsylvania Administrative Code. Pennsylvania Administrative Code. Elliott testified that Elliott testified she believed that she believed that that Respondent Respondent lived lived in in the the Property, but had Property, but had never never been been on or inside on or the Property inside the and that Property and that she she lived lived four houses down four houses down and and the street. Her across the Her testimony testimony that she often saw Respondent Respondent outside of of the the Property Property does not not rebut rebut Passyn's, Passyn's, a neighbor's, testimony a nearer neighbor's, testimony that that Respondent Respondent frequently frequently visited visited the the Property Property to unload unload materials materials on its its grounds, grounds, but but did continuously reside did not continuously reside there. there. The The Court reasonably reasonably concluded that Respondent Respondent did not occupy occupy the Property, Property, and that Respondent Respondent could not legally legally 13 occupy the occupy the Property. Property properly found 3. The Court properly found that that Petitioner Petitioner established the conditions for for Conservatorship required by Conservatorship required by P.S. $§1105(d)(5). 1105(d)(5). Section 5(d)(5) Section of the 5(d(5) of Abandoned and the Abandoned and Blighted Blighted Property Conservatorship Act Property Conservatorship Act requires requires aa finding that Petitioner has established at least three of aalist of nine enumerated conditions in finding order to order to appoint appoint a a Conservator: Conservator: (i) building or physical (i) The building physical structure is apublic is a public nuisance. nuisance (ii) The building is The building is in in need need of substantial rehabilitation and no no rehabilitation rehabilitation has has taken taken place place during during the previous previous 12 months. months (iii) The (iii) The building building isis unfit for human habitation, occupancyoccupancy or use.use (iv) The (iv) The condition and vacancy vacancy of the building building materially materially increase the risk of fie fire to the building and to adjacent building adjacent properties. properties. (v) The building (v) building is subject to unauthorized entry leading to potential potential health and safety hazards and one of the following applies: following applies (A) The (A) The owner owner has failed to has failed to take take reasonable reasonable and and necessary necessary measures measures to secure the to secure the building. building (B) The municipality municipality has secured the buildingbuilding in order to prevent prevent such hazards after the owner has failed to do so so. (vi) The (vi) The property property isis an an attractive attractive nuisance nuisance to to children, including, including, but but not not limited limited to, to, the the presence presence of abandoned wells, shafts, basements, excavations and unsafe structures structures. (vii) The presence (vii) presence of vermin or the accumulation of debris, uncut vegetation vegetation or physical physical deterioration of the deterioration grounds has the structure or grounds has created created potential potential health health and and safety hazards hazards and the owner has failed the owner failed to to take take reasonable and necessary reasonable and necessary measures measures to to remove remove the the hazards. hazards. (viii) The (viii) dilapidated appearance The dilapidated appearance or other other condition condition of the the building building negatively negatively affects affects the the economic well-being well-being of of residents residents and and businesses businesses in close proximity proximity to to the the building, building, including including decreases in property property value and loss of business, and the owner has failed to take reasonable necessary measures to remed and necessary remedy y appearance or the condition. (ix) (ix) The The property property isis an an attractive attractive nuisance nuisance forfor illicit illicit purposes, purposes, including including prostitution, prostitution, drug drug use and and vagrancy. vagrancy I I 68 Pa. 68 Pa. Stat. Stat. Ann. Ann. §$ 1105 1105 (West). The Court (West). The Court found found that Petitioner established that Petitioner established P. S. §$ 1105(d)(5)(i), P.S. 1105(d)¥5¥9), (ii), (iv) (in), (iv) and and (vii). (vi) Respondent argues that Respondent argues that "not a a single single witness witness or person person was was called from the the neighborhood, neighborhood, from from the community, from the community, from the church or the church or any any place else to place else corroborate," and to corroborate," and asks "...where's where's the testimony any eredible testimony from any credible source other than Mr. Passy? Passyn? No testimony testimony from 14 14 the --— no witnesses, witnesses, no officials, officials, not even L &I, & I, that -— that the Property Property presented aadanger to the public." N.T. IV at public." at 12, 17. 17. Counsel Counsel for for Respondent Respondent "challenge[d] Your Honor "challenge[d] Your and anyone Honor and anyone else else to to say say that, that, when when looking looking at at that that picture, any pictures picture, any pictures presented, presented, that that it showed blight." it showed blight." N.T. at NT IV at 14-15. 14.15. When When asked asked to to be be more specific about more specific about which which pictures pictures he referenced, counsel he referenced, counsel for for Respondent stated that Respondent that "the pictures speak for themselves." Id. Crucial to Respondent's argument pictures speak "the natural barriers and the fencing are the fencing and all of that around the Property" Property" which obstructed "any public "any public view of the Property. Property. And, therefore, how could you you say that it's blighted when you can't see it?" it?" Id. at 16. Id. at Findings Findings of fact made during during an evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing in an Act Aet 135 matter, including credibility determinations of witnesses made by credibility by the lower court, are afforded great deference. deference. In G & G Invs., LLC v. Phillips Simmons Real _&Glnvs,LLCy.Phillips Est. Holdings, Rea!Est. Holdings, the standard of review was described as follows: as follows: Our review in aanon review in jury case is non-jury is limited limited to to whether the findings whether the of the findings of the trial court are trial court supported by supported competent evidence by competent and whether evidence and whether the trial court the trial court committed committed error error in in the the application of law. We must grant application grant the court's findings findings of fact the same weight weight and effect as the verdict of aajury jury and, accordingly, accordingly, may may disturb the non jury verdict only if the non-jury court's findings findings are unsupported unsupported by competent evidence or the court by competent count committed legal legal error that affected the outcome of the trial. It is not the error that affected the outcome of the trial. It is not the role of of an appellate court to appellate court to pass on the credibility of witnesses; hence we will not substitute our judgment judgment for that of the fact[-]finder. facet[-finder. Thus, Thus, the the test test we we apply apply is not not whether whether we we would would have have reached reached the the same result on the evidence presented, presented, but rather, after due consideration of the evidence which the trial court found credible, whether the trial court could have reasonably reached its conclusion. conclusion. G & G Invs., LLC v. G&Glvs.,LLC Phillips Simmons Real Est. • Phillips Est. Holdings, LLC, 2018 PA Super 80, 80,183 183 A.3d 472,478 472, 478 (2018) quoting Agostinelli (2018) quoting Agostinelli v. Edwards, Edwards, 98 A.3d 695, 704 704 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal appeal denied, 631 Pa. 734, 113 A.3d 278 278 (2015) (2015) (internal (intemal citations omitted). The Court's findings findings of blight blight will be addressed individually. individually. (i) (i) The building or physical The building physical structure is a apublic public nuisance. 15 The statute The statute defines defines "public "public nuisance" in section nuisance" in section 1103: 1103: "[a] fa] property that, because property that, of because of physical condition or use, physical use, has been declared by by the appropriate appropriate official aapublic public nuisance in in accordance with the local housing, building, health, fire or related code, or is determined to be aa housing, building, public public nuisance by the nuisance by the court." At At common common law, "[a] public law, "[a] public nuisance nuisance is is an unreasonable unreasonable interference with aaright right common to to the the general public; circumstances that constitute a general public; a public nuisance nuisance are, among other things, conduct that things, that is is proscribed proscribed by by statute or ordinance, or conduct that interferes interferes with public public peace." Comonwealthy.Ebaugh, peace." Commonwealth v. Ebaugh, 783 A.2d 846, 783 A.2d 846, 850 850 (Pa. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001); Commw. Ct. 2001); Muehlieb v. Muehliebv, City of Philadelphia, City Philadelphia, 574 A.2d 1208 1208 (Pa. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990). The Court reasonably reasonably found Property was found that the Property was a public nuisance a public nuisance under both both the statutory and common law definitions. The main structure on the building statutory building was declared unsafe in 2018 by the 2018 by the Department of Licenses Department of Licenses && Inspections. N.T. I Inspections. N.T. at 37, I at 37, 51-52 and 58; 51-52 and 58; Ex. 5-039. 5-039.AA rear rear structure on the the Property Property was declared declared imminently dangerous, and was imminently dangerous, was ultimately demolished demolished in in 2021 by City of Philadelphia by the City Philadelphia after it began to slide onto aaneighbor's it began neighbor's property. property. Id. at 41-43. Prior Prior to to the City's undertaking the City's undertaking the demolition of of the the rear rear structure, structure, Respondent Respondent signed signed aaFinal Final Order and Injunction Injunction to to Comply Comply Violations stipulated that Violations which stipulated that he he would repair the would repair garage the garage structure, and that structure, subject premises that "the subject premises is is a a nuisance nuisance per per se and presents presents a a hazard hazard to the safety, safety, health, and welfare of the neighbors, public in general." neighbors, and the public general." Ex. 5-19-020. Appropriate Appropriate officials made officials made these these findings, as well findings, as as others well as others related related to to the debris on the debris on the the Property, that satisfy Property, that satisfy the definition of public public nuisance nuisance supplied supplied by Act 135. by Aet Contrary to Contrary to Respondent's argument that Respondent's argument that no "no officials, officials, not even L not even L&& II [testified] that the [testified] that the Property Property presented presented aadanger danger to the public," public," Inspector Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski testified that "[t]here "[tJhere [were] [were] open junction junction boxes, open outlets, boxes, open outlets, exposed exposed wire ... aheavy wire...a heavy fire load in the interior of the 16 Property... combustible materials, Property...combustible materials, [and] [and] propane propane tanks" tanks" when when the the Property Property was inspected in was inspected in 2022. N.T. N.T IV at 12, 17; N.T. IT;N. T. IIat 20. In order to address these concerns, "the CLIP CLIP (Community (Community Life Life Improve Improve Project) Project) has gone to has gone to the the Property Property several times... through court order times...through order.....and and Id. 31. removed the debris." [d. City of Philadelphia The City Philadelphia undertook undertook demolition of imminently dangerous of the imminently dangerous rear garage garage I structure, declared the main structure unsafe because of its defective roof, and cleared dangerous dangerous flammable materials from flammable materials the interior from the and exterior interior and exterior of of the the Property. Given this Property. Given official action, this official action, and and Passyn's testimony of his Passyn's testimony his attempts attempts to persuade Respondent to persuade Respondent to to clear the materials materials from from the the Property Property and and that Respondent Respondent erected an illegal illegal fence fence covered with with aablue blue tarp tarp in order to conceal the the three to six three to six foot foot high accumulations accumulations of of scrap scrap and and combustible combustible materials materials from from neighbors' neighbors' view, (N.T. IIat 94), the Court reasonably view,(N.T. reasonably found that the Property Property poses poses a a public public nuisance. (ii) (ii) The building is in need building is ofsubstantial rehabilitation and no rehabilitati need of rehabilitation no took place in place in twelve months months prior the filing prior to the of the filing of the petition. petition "Substantial rehabilitation" is defined in the act as "repairs, replacements Substantial replacements and improvements" improvements" that exceed 5% of the property's exceed ""115% property's value after completion completion of all repairs," repairs," or where where "more than one major major building building component is being replaced," replaced," which includes "roof structures" and structures" and "wall or floor "wall or structures." P. floor structures." PS,S. $§ 1103. 1103 The main The main physical physical structure structure on on the the Property Property was declared unsafe was declared by the unsafe by the Department Department of Licenses && Inspections. Licenses Inspections. N.T. N.T I 51. The detached garage I at 51 garage structure was declared imminently imminently dangerous on March 9, 2021, eight days after the Petition was filed. Ex. Ex. 5-039. The conditions of the garage garage structure existed since at least August August 2019 2019 when when the City of Philadelphia the City brought aa Philadelphia brought complaint against complaint against Respondent, Respondent, resulting resulting in an Injunction Comply Violations with which Injunction to Comply 17 Respondent Respondent failed to comply. Ex. to comply. Ex. 5-019. 5-019. Ultimately, Ultimately, the City demolished the City demolished the the stricture. N.T. I structure. N.T. at I at 43-44. 43.44. Inspector Rybakowski Inspector testified to Rybakowski testified to Exhibit Exhibit 6-018, "a photograph taken "a photograph of the taken of interior of the interior of the Property the showing that Property showing there is that there is aasection section of of the plaster work the plaster that has work that has fallen or is fallen or dislodged is dislodged from the interior section" which indicates "a "a lack of maintenance and that there is an issue with the the interior structure." Ex. interior structure." 6-018; N.T. Ex. 6-018; N.T. I at 28-29. I at 28-29. Though Though Inspector Inspector Rybakowski acknowledged Rybakowski acknowledged that "some repair that "some repair work...was work ... was done done to to the structural members" the structural members" between the initial between the initial unsafe unsafe violation in in April April 2018 and the January January 2022 follow-up follow-up inspection inspection to which Inspector Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski referred referred in his his testimony, testimony, Respondent Respondent offered no evidence offered no evidence about about when when this this work work was done or its substance. [d. Id. at 55. Inspector Rybakowski's 55. Inspector Rybakowski's concerns about the structure remained, remained, as as "there was no no permit permit pulled pulled for for the repair repair of that that assembly" assembly" and no no assurance "that "that the the work was done adequately." adequately." Further, Further, at at the the time time the Petition was the Petition filed, the was filed, detached garage the detached garage structure structure was was in in a a condition that that eight eight days days later later would would be declared imminently imminently dangerous, dangerous, "had already already collapsed... into the neighbor's collapsed...into neighbor's yard," yard," and and which Respondent Respondent had agreed to demolish 13 months had agreed prior. Id. [Id, at 42-43. Both the main and Both the and detached structures at detached structures at the Property were the Property were in in need of substantial need of substantial rehabilitation. rehabilitation. The The Department of Licenses Department of Licenses && Inspections Inspections designated designated them them unsafe and unsafe and imminently dangerous, imminently dangerous, respectively. respectively. Though Respondent performed Though Respondent performed some some rehabilitation rehabilitation to to the the roof of the roof of main structure, the main structure, the the detached garage structure detached garage structure was was left left to to the city to the city to demolish, and demolish, and nothing nothing in the record indicated when the roofing work took place, place, or whether it remediated the unsafe unsafe conditions. conditions. (iii) (iii) condition of The condition of the building materially increased building materially increased the risk offire risk offire to the building building 18 and adjacent buildings. Inspector Rybakowski testified that "[t]he Inspector Rybakowski "[t]he interior of the Property Property had a a large large amount of combustibles," that combustibles," that there "were open there "were open junction boxes, open junction boxes, open outlets, outlets, exposed exposed wire," and there wire," and "was there "was aaheavy fire load heavy fire load in in the interior of the interior of the the Property." Property." N.T. N.T. IIat at 20. 20. In In Exhibit 6-022, he Exhibit 6-022, he identified identified aa propane propane tank tank and various chemicals. [d. various chemicals. Id. at 25. Finally, Finally, Inspector Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski identified identified four four open violations open assessed against violations assessed against the the Property, one for Property, one "combustibles," which for "combustibles," he describes which he as "a describes as "a large assemblage large assemblage of of material belongings, which material belongings, which are are all all fire fire hazards. hazards. They all have They all have an an individual individual combustible or or flame flame points, points, but but the assemblance of those materials materials are combustibles. There is is also propane tanks tanks that that were were specifically pictured pictured that is is a a source concern." N.T. source of concem" NT. I 74-75. I at 74.75, Passyn testified Passyn testified that that he observed aafire he observed fire at at the the Property Property in 2020, and in 2020, and Petitioner Petitioner introduced introduced aa Report of Report of Fire Fire Alarm Alarm from from June June 17, 17, 2020 2020 stating that the stating that fire department the fire department found found the cause of the cause of alarin to alarm to be be "rubbish "rubbish in in the the rear of the rear of the Property." N.T. IIat Property." N.T. at 104-105; 104-105; Ex. 9. Ex. 9 Given the testimony testimony about previous previous fires at the Property, Property, and the accumulation of flammable materials materials which which the the Department of Licenses Department of Licenses && Inspections Inspections identified identified as as aahazard hazard warranting warranting aaviolation notice, the violation notice, Court reasonably the Court reasonably found found that that the the Property Property materially materially increases increases the risk the risk of of fire. fire. (iv) (ivy) The presence of vermin or accumulated debris has created potential health and safety hazards and the owner has failed to take reasonable and necessary necessary measures to remove the hazards. Petitioner Petitioner provided provided ample ample testimony testimony regarding regarding accumulation of debris accumulation of debris on on the the Property, Property, corroborated by photographs & IIviolations photographs and evidence of L & citing the accumulation of debris. violations citing 19 19 Inspector Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski testified "Exhibit 6-011 shows...a testified "Exhibit shows... alarge amount of large amount of material material and and belongings and accumulation belongings and of debris, accumulation of debris, trash, and other trash, and other effects effects in in the the rear yard of rear yard of the the Property" Property" CLIP (Community and that CLIP Improvement Project) (Community Life Improvement Project) "has gone gone to the Property Property several times ... to remove the debris," indicating times...to indicating not just just the presence presence of debris, but a a determination made by by the City of Philadelphia Philadelphia that the debris posed posed a a danger danger that required abatement. N.T. required abatement, N.T II at 25, 31. The Department of Licenses 25,31, Licenses && Inspections Inspections issued aanumber of violations against against the Property for for "trash." Id. Id. at 47; Ex. 5-009; Ex. 5-004; Ex. 5-026; Ex. 5-037. 5-037 Passyn Passyn testified that church events "have been interfered interfered with because because there's there's so much much debris and open containers and open and stagnant water that it breeds mosquitoes." N.T. NT. II at 95. Passyn Passyn also testified that he addressed his concerns with Respondent numerous times, times, but that Respondent either failed to remove it, material. N.T. it, or his efforts to address the issue were undone by additional material, N.T. I I at 93-95. The Court reasonably found found that that the the accumulation of debris on the the Property Property poses poses aa safety hazard, and safety hazard, and Respondent Respondent had had not not taken the necessary taken the measures to necessary measures to remove remove the the hazard. hazard. 4. The Court did not abuse abuse its its discretion in overruling overruling any any of Respondent's objections Respondent's objections to the evidence offered and/or testimony solicited byby Petitioner during during any of the any relevant hearings. hearings. Respondent's 1925(b) statement presents presents aageneral encompassing each and general argument encompassing every adverse evidentiary ruling made over the course of three hearings. hearings. Resp't's 1925(b) Resp't's Rule 1925() Statement of Errors Complained Statement of Complained of of on on Appeal at ¶ 3, 4. Appeal at3, Though Respondent 4. Though Respondent fails to cite to to cite to any any specific rulings rulings that it it believes were were in error, error, Respondent's objections which were Respondent's objections were overruled by overruled by the the Court will be be grouped grouped as logically as as logically possible. as possible. Some similarly Some similarly themed arguments proffered themed arguments proffered in Respondent's 1925(b) in Respondent's 1925() Statement can be Statement can be overruling Respondent's summarized to say: "The Court abused its discretion in overruling objections to Respondent's objections 20 20 Petitioner's evidence and Petitioner's witnesses' testimony, and therefore based its finding that the Property is blighted Propenty is blighted and abandoned on aatainted evidentiary record." At At oral argument on Respondent's Respondent's Motion for Post-Trial Relief, counsel for Respondent stated that that "the testimony presented by Petitioner presented by was confined Petitioner was confined solely to that solely to of Mr. that of Mr. Passyn. Passyn. Yet ... Mr. Passy Yet...Mr. Passyn gave ... hearsay testimony... gave...hearsay that parishioners testimony...that complained." N.T. parishioners and others complained." NT. IV at 12. I2. He noted his belief that, because because "the challenges to even the presentation of such evidence the challenges evidence (regarding (regarding the condition of the Property) Property) by by Respondent Respondent were overruled by the Court...that...the Court... that... the Court may have been inadvertently inadvertently led down aaprimrose primrose path path based solely on conjecture, embellished testimony — and that being testimony -and being the hearsay testimony included --— concerning any condition of the Property." Id. at 14. Finally, counsel for Respondent Property." [d. Respondent claimed that "[f]or "[fJor the most part, almost none of the pictures pictures or photographs photographs offered by Petitioner have aadate on them. We don't know when. We do know that there were some dates that date back to 2010, 2015, 2017, 2018. They're totally irrelevant." Id. at 15-16. evidentiary rulings The lower court's evidentiary rulings will not not be disturbed unless unless the the court is is found found to to have abused its Tillery v. Children's its discretion. Tillery_v. Children's Hosp. of Philadelphia, 156 A.3d Hosp. of A.3d 1233, 1233, 1234 (201.7). A (2017). A trial court abuses its its discretion discretion where where it misapplies misapplies the law law in away that in such a is that is manifestly manifestly unreasonable or exercises its judgment judgment because of bias, prejudice, ill will or partiality partiality as shown by by the evidence in in the record. Com. v. record. Com, , Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 35 35 (2014). (2014), Respondent's objections occurred during Respondent's objections during the testimony of two witnesses: Inspector Rybakowski, and Passyn. Respondent objected to testimony on several bases which will be discussed one at aatime. i., Respondent's Respondent's hearsay objections objections 21 Hearsay Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for for the truth truth of the the matter matter asserted in in the the statement. Com, Com. v. Begley, 780 A.2d 605, v, Begley, 605, 623 623 (2001). (2001). Hearsay Hearsay is inadmissible because such aa statement is statement is presumed to be presumed to be unreliable since the unreliable since declarant cannot the declarant cannot testify testify to to its accuracy.Id. accuracy. Id. I Factual findings cannot be based exclusively Compensation Inspector Inspector Rybakowski exclusively on hearsay evidence. Compensation Board of Review, 367 A.2d 366 (Pa.Cmwlth. A.24 366 evidence. Walker v. (Pa.CmwIth. 1976). 1976) inspected the Property Rybakowski testified that he inspected Property in Unemployment y.Unemployment in January January 2022, noting "the [Code that "the [Code Enforcement Inspector] Inspector] had already been into the basement area and had documented the documented conditions of the conditions of the the Property." Property." N.T. N.T I at 27. I at 27. Inspector Inspector Rybakowski described how Rybakowski described how he conducted the inspection. Counsel for Respondent the inspection. Respondent stated that: that:"I'm I'm going going to object to to object to that testimony and move testimony move to to strike itit on the basis basis of hearsay hearsay because because he's basing basing his opinion on information from information from third third parties." parties." Id. Id. Inspector Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski testified testified that that the the Code Code Enforcement Enforcement Inspector Inspector had previously previously been to the basement of the Property, Property, and Inspector Inspector Rybakowski's Rybakowski's own inspection inspection focused on the the roof. Id. The roof [d. The witness did not not repeat repeat aastatement made made out of court. He testified to his testified to his own own knowledge knowledge of of why he was why he was at at the Property: to the Property: to inspect inspect the the roof. roof. No No hearsay hearsay Respondent's objection was properly evidence was offered, and Respondent's properly overruled. overruled. During Passyn's testimony, During Passyn's testimony, he testified that new parishioners parishioners express express fear because the Property "looks dangerous Property "looks dangerous and and dilapidated." dilapidated." Id. Id. at at 96. Respondent objected, 96. Respondent objected, and and the Court the Court allowed Petitioner to pursue pursue the topic deciding whether the testimony topic before deciding testimony should be stricken. Passyn complaints regarding Passyn was then asked whether the church ever submitted complaints regarding the condition of the Property, to the Property, to which which he answered that he answered it had that it had not, but that not, but that the the Board Board of Stewards approved of Stewards approved the the filing filing of the Act Id. at 96.97, Aet 135 Petition. [d. 96-97. Petitioner's direct examination of Passyn Passyn did not further explore explore the experiences of the experiences of parishioners parishioners beyond beyond the the fact fact that that the approved filing the Board approved filing the the Petition Petition on behalf behalf of the the church, which presumably represents which presumably represents the the interests parishioners. interests of its parishioners. Though Passyn's Passyn's specific statement regarding regarding parishioners' parishioners' feelings feelings was not affirmatively affirmatively 22 stricken, the Court sustained Respondent's Respondent's next objection objection to aaquestion question about whether Passyn Passyn complaints from anybody received complaints anybody other than parishioners about the condition of the subject Property. Property. Id. at 101. Id. at 10I. The Court did not permit permit Passyn Passyn to to testify testify about the opinions opinions of individuals other than himself. himself. The testimony following Respondent's The testimony Respondent's initial objection objection merely merely elicited the the fact that that the the Board approved approved filing the Petition on behalf of the church, church. Petitioner was afforded the opportunity to develop opportunity develop the basis for Passyn's testimony about parishioners' Passyn's testimony parishioners' feelings, feelings, but chose to. Rather than affirmatively not to. affirmatively strike the prior testimony, the Court properly prior testimony, properly sustained Respondent's next hearsay objection. The Court did not consider the feelings of other parishioners parishioners as relayed by Passyn, as evidenced by its decision to sustain Respondent's hearsay objection. objection, Though Respondent Respondent argues frequently and forcefully forcefully that Passyn's Passyn's testimony is comprised nearly nearly entirely of hearsay hearsay testimony, testimony, the record demonstrates that Respondent's Respondent's objection is without merit. Respondent objection Respondent made only two objections objections to Passyn's Passyn's testimony during testimony during Petitioner's direct examination. After allowing allowing the testimony, testimony, the Court sustained Respondent's Respondent's hearsay objections. second hearsay objections. The Court did not abuse its discretion in affording affording Petitioner this this opportunity, nor opportunity, declining to affirmatively nor in declining Passyn's statement affirmatively strike Passyn's statement about about the feelings feelings of parishioners. parishioners ii. ii. Respondent's relevance objections Only relevant relevant evidence evidence is is admissible. Commonwealth v. admissible. Commonwealth Yale, 249 vYale, A.3d 1001, 249 A.3d 1001, 1022 1022 (202 1) ("The threshold inquiry with admission of evidence is (2021)("The is whether the evidence is relevant.") relevant,") ' Relevant Relevant evidence evidence has any any tendency tendency to to make aafact fact more more or or less probable than it less probable it would would be I f 23 23 without the evidence. Id. Relevant evidence is not admissible where, among other things, its 1ts probative value probative substantially outweighed value is substantially outweighed by by aadanger of unfair unfair prejudice. prejudice. Lykes v. Yates, 77 Lykes y.Yates, 77 A.3d 27, 27, 33 (2013). (2013). "Unfair prejudice" prejudice" refers to any any evidence that prompts prompts the factfinder fact finder to make aadecision on an improper improper basis by by making it difficult for the jury jury to weigh weigh all the evidence impartially. impartially. Id. For purposes purposes of Act Aet 135, the filing filing date is the relevant, fixed point point from which the court assesses the Property's Property's candidacy for conservatorship. conservatorship. ("... the court may appoint aaconservator if ("...the all of the following following apply filing:.. " P.S. §$ 1105(d)). apply as of the date of filing:..." 1105(d)). Throughout the testimony Inspector Rybakowski of Inspector Passyn, Respondent Rybakowski and Passyn, objected to the introduction of evidence of the Respondent objected condition of the Property that predates predates "the relevant statutory period." Respondent argues that Petitioner was permitted permitted to introduce evidence irrelevant to the condition of the Property at the time the Petition was filed. filed. "Under the guise of presenting presenting a a history dating back to 2010," Petitioner Petitioner presented presented evidence of the poor condition of the poor of the the Property Property irrelevant irrelevant to the the condition of of the Property the Property at the time time of filing, and prejudicial filing, and prejudicial to Respondent. Resp't's Rule 1925(b) Respondent. Resp't's 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained Complained of on Appeal at at ¶ 4(c). Respondent further claims that "the outer limits" of the time period described as "at the time of filing" is is "the the previous twelve months." Id. A A plain plain reading reading of the statute does not not support support Respondent's only evidence of Respondent's claim that only the condition of the Property Property dated from within twelve months of the filing date is relevant. relevant. It is true true that greatest time that the greatest time period period referred referred to to at any any point point in in P.S. P.S. §$ 1105(d) 1105(d) is is the twelve twelve month month during which Petitioner must prove period during prove the property property was not legally legally occupied, but nowhere in is the limit beyond the statute is it indicated that this twelve months is beyond which evidence of the condition of the property property becomes irrelevant irrelevant. Even if the Court were to adopt Respondent's Respondent's interpretation of P.S. P.S. §$ 1105(d), there is is no categorically declare all reason to categorically all evidence of the Property Property in the twelve months predating predating the 24 filing filing of the Petition irrelevant to evidence of the condition of the Property, especially where evidence has been introduced that the condition of the Property has been largely unchanged. Evidence of the condition of the Property Property as it existed thirteen months before the date of filing is is probative probative of the condition of the Property of the Property twelve twelve months before before the the date of of filing. Respondent expressed this objection Respondent expressed objection throughout Inspector Rybakowski's testimony, first to to photographs photographs of the the Property Propenty taken taken in in February February of 2022. N.T. I 2022.N.T 22. Counsel for Petitioner I at 22. Petitioner asked Inspector Rybakowski whether he was Inspector Rybakowski was "aware of court orders that have been entered regarding regarding the conditions of the subject subject Property." Id. at 32. Respondent's objection on relevance grounds was overruled. grounds overruled. [d. Id. Inspector Rybakowski testified regarding an order entered in May of Inspector Rybakowski authorizing the City 2017 authorizing City of Philadelphia Philadelphia to remove debris from the exterior of the subject premises premises in order to abate violations assessed against the Property by the Department of Licenses & Inspections., & Inspections.,'12 and testified that violation notices requiring Respondent to remove debris from his Property Property date back to 2015. Id. [d. at 33, 50. Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski then testified regarding the initial initial notice of the the unsafe structure against the Property structure violation assessed against in April of Property in of 2018. 2018. Id. Id. Respondent objected to testimony Respondent objected testimony regarding regarding the detached garage garage structure, which was the subject of aacomplaint complaint by by the City City of Philadelphia Philadelphia dating back to August of 2019. [d. Id. at 46; Ex. 5-019. The detached garage garage structure was found in need of remediation in August of 2019. Ex. 5-019. It was not remediated until March of 2021, shortly shortly after the Petition was filed, when the City of City of Philadelphia demolished the Philadelphia demolished the garage. garage. N.T. N.T. IIat at 43-44. 43-44. Though Though Petitioner failed to Petitioner failed to introduce evidence of the condition of the garage that is is contemporaneous with the time the Petition was filed, filed, the complaint complaint filed by by the City in 2019 and the injunction order signed by Respondent requiring that he remediate the structure in 2020 is Respondent requiring is relevant to the condition of the iz Respondent's subsequent objection Respondent's subsequent objection to a a letter authority by CLIP CLIP (Community (Community Life Improvement Project) describing describing its its efforts to abate the Property Property was sustained on hearsay grounds. grounds. N.T. Iat 34.35 NT,]At 34-35 25 structure at the time of filing filing because no remediation took place place until after the Petition was filed. The history The of violations history of for the violations for accumulation of the accumulation of debris on the debris on the Property Property is is relevant relevant to to the the condition of condition of the the Property at the Property at the time of filing time of because, as filing because, as Inspector Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski testified, testified, Respondent Respondent never took took actions to to adequately adequately remedy remedy the violations. violations. N.T. NT. I Though Passyn I at 51. Though testified testified that the amount that the amount of of debris debris on the the Property Property fluctuated, fluctuated, the fact that the fact that the the City City of of Philadelphia Philadelphia had to enter enter the the Property Property to to remove remove debris by by court order, and and had had to to do so so more more once, is than once, probative of is probative of the the fact fact that that the the issue debris on issue of debris on the the Property Property was persistent and was persistent and intrusive. Id. intrusive. at 93.-94. Id. at 93-94. Further, Further, Respondent's Respondent's failure to cooperate failure to cooperate with the City with the of Philadelphia, City of Philadelphia, both in removing debris and complying in removing complying with the the imminently dangerous and imminently dangerous and unsafe unsafe structure violations assessed against against the Property, is probative probative of his capacity to undertake conditional pursuant to 1105(f). relief pursuant 1105(9).13 Respondent's objections are without merit, and the Court did not Respondent's objections abuse its discretion in allowing allowing this evidence. iii. iii, to the form of Petitioner's Respondent's objections to Petitioner 's questions as leading and as beyond the scope of cross-examination and a. Leading questions It is within the court's discretion to exclude questions questions that are leading during a leading during a direct examination. Com Com. v. Reidenbaugh, Reidenbaugh, 422 422 A.2d A.2d 1126, 1126, 1131 1131 ((1980). 1980). Leading Leading questions questions are those that that are framed to suggest suggest the desired answer to to the witness. Id. the witness, [d, "The trial The trial judge judge has has wide wide discretion in controlling discretion in controlling the use of leading the use questions. The leading questions. The Despite the substantial evidence introduced by 13pespite by Petitioner documenting Respondent's refusal and/or inability to cooperate in in remedying the violations assessed against the property, Respondent was afforded three distinct opportunities capacity to remediate the property opportunities to demonstrate his capacity property himself. himself See June 16,2023 16, 2023 Court Order, Order; August 9, 2023 Court 9,2023 Order; October 11, Count Order, 2023 Court 11,2023 Count Order. I 26 court's tolerance court's tolerance or or intolerance intolerance for leading questions will leading questions will not not be reversed on be reversed on appeal appeal absent absent an an abuse of abuse of discretion." om., discretion." Com. v. Fransen, 2012 PA Fransen, 2012 PA Super Super 57, 42 42 A.3d A.3d 1100, 1100, 1116 1116 (2012) (2012) quoting Com. v. Lambert, 765 Com,Labert, 765 A.24 A.2d 306, 306, 360 360 (Pa.Super.2000). (Pa.Super.2000) During Inspector Rybakowski's testimony, counsel for Petitioner directed his attention to Rybakowski's testimony, the initial notice of the unsafe structure violation assessed against against the Property, Property, and asked if he had had personally observed "conditions "conditions at the subject Property the subject Property that that are damaged, are characterized as damaged, decayed, dilapidated, decayed, structurally unsafe, dilapidated, structurally unsafe, or of such or of such faulty faulty construction construction or or unstable unstable foundation foundation that partial partial or complete collapse is possible?" possible?" N.T. NT. IIat 38. 38. In doing doing so, counsel for Petitioner quoted from quoted the definition from the definition of of unsafe structure given unsafe structure given in the the notice and previously notice and read into previously read the into the record, record, and asked Inspector Rybakowski whether, during Inspector Rybakowski during his inspections inspections of the Property, Property, he he observed the conditions giving giving rise rise to the unsafe structure violation. violation. Respondent Respondent objected objected to the of "unsafe structure" in the question repetition of the definition of question posed posed to Inspector Inspector Rybakowski. Rybakowski The question The question posed by counsel posed by for Petitioner counsel for does not Petitioner does impermissibly suggest not impermissibly suggest to Inspector to Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski that that the Property is the Property is unsafe where it unsafe where it merely merely incorporates incorporates the definition of the definition of "unsafe" "unsafe" provided by the exhibit. Further, Inspector Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski offered substantial testimony testimony about the condition of the Property Property without the aid of the unsafe structure violation informing informing him as to which conditions Petitioner asled him to describe. describe. Respondent's Respondent's objection objection is without basis. On redirect On examination of redirect examination of Inspector Rybakowski, counsel Inspector Rybakowski, counsel for for Petitioner asked if Petitioner asked if he he observed any observed change in any change in the condition of the condition of the the Property since February Property since February 2022. 2022. Id. Id. at 80-81. He at 80.81, He answered that the condition has not changed changed and stated that "[t]here "[there was still a a large large accumulation of material in the rear of the Property." Property." Id. at 81. Counsel for Petitioner asked: "Similar Similar to what's depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit 6-002?" Id. Respondent objected [d. Respondent objected to this question. Id. [d. The witness was asked to observe aaphotograph, photograph, described the condition of the Property Property as unchanged unchanged from from what what is in the is depicted in photograph, then the photograph, then was was asked to to confirm his his 27 by specific answer by specific reference to the photograph. photograph. The conclusion that the Property's condition was similar to to the conditions depicted the conditions depicted in in Exhibit 6-002 was not Exhibit 6-002 suggested to not suggested to the the witness witness by the the question, but by question, by the the Exhibit itself. The Exhibit itself. The question confirming that question confirming Exhibit 6-002 that Exhibit 6-002 accurately accurately represents the represents the condition of the Property as most the Property most recently recently observed by the witness witness merely merely restated restated the answer the the witness already provided. witness already Respondent's objection provided. Respondent's objection is is without without basis. basis During During direct examination of Passyn, Passyn, counsel for Petitioner asked the witness: witness: "... how "...how long long has the subject Property the subject Property included an accumulation included an accumulation of of trash, trash, debris, debris, and and flammable flammable material material as depicted in Exhibit depicted in Exhibit 22and and the the pictures that were pictures that discussed earlier were discussed earlier today today by Inspector by Inspector Rybakowski." Rybakowski." Id. Respondent stated: Id. at 92-93. Respondent "Iobject stated: "I object to to the form of of the question, `flammable the question, 'flammable this and and flammable that."' that."" Id. [d. at 93. 93. Though Respondent's objection was overruled, counsel for Petitioner restated the Petitioner restated the question, question, and and asked: asked: "How How long long has has the subject Property the subject had an Property had an accumulation of material as depicted depicted in in Exhibit 2." Id. Passyn ultimately [d. Passyn ultimately did not suggest suggest that any any any point of the material was flammable at any point during except to say that he observed during his testimony, except fire at the Property at the Property in in June of 2020, June of 2020, and referred referred to Exhibit 16, to Exhibit 16, aacopy of the copy of the report report of of fire fire alarm from June 2020 where where the the fire department department entered Respondent's Respondent's Property. Id. at Property. [d, at 104-105. 104.105, During direct direct examination of Passyn at examination of at the 2023 hearing, the August 9, 2023 hearing, Respondent objected Respondent objected to to aaquestion question from counsel for Petitioner Petitioner which which alerted alerted the witness witness to the date date of the the prior prior hearing hearing in order to to ask him whether whether work work on the Property had the Property performed since that time. had been performed time. Notes of Testimony, August Testimony, 2023 ("N.T. 11") August 9, 2023(N.T II") at 41. The Court did not at 41. not abuse its discretion in allowing in allowing Petitioner Petitioner to to remind remind the witness of the the time time period relevant relevant to to his his testimony testimony by by reference reference to to aa court count date. The phrasing question allowed the witness to focus on the work performed phrasing of this question performed on the the Property since the Property sine the last last hearing, and prevented hearing, and redundant and prevented redundant and cumulative cumulative testimony testimony about any about any prior prior period. period. Respondent's objections are Respondent's objections are without merit, and without merit, and the Court did the Count did not not abuse abuse its discretion in its discretion in 28 28 overruling them. b. Questions beyond of cross-examination scope of beyond the scope cross- examination "The scope of redirect examination is largely Te largely within the discretion of the trial court. Moreover, when aaparty party raises an issue on cross-examination, it will be no abuse of discretion for the court court to permit re-direct on that issue in order to dispel dispel any any unfair inferences." Com.y, Com. v. Dreibelbis, Dreibelbis, 493 Pa. Pa. 466, 479, 479, 426 426 A.2d A.2d 1111, 1111, 1117 1117 ((1981) 198 1) citing citing Com. v. y. Stokes, 475 475 Pa. Pa. 312, 380 A.2d A.24 370 370 ((1977) 1977). On cross examination of Inspector Rybakowski, counsel for Respondent Inspector Rybakowski, Respondent asked the witness witness whether whether he was aware that that Respondent Respondent had put dumpsters had put dumpsters on the the Property Property and and asked asked whether he knew if Respondent had thrown some of the material on the Property Property in in the dumpsters. N.T. dumpsters. N.T I at 66-68. I at 66-68. On On redirect redirect examination, counsel for examination, counsel for Petitioner Petitioner asked the witness asked the to witness to look look at at Exhibit Exhibit 6-002, aapicture picture of the the Property, and asked him him whether whether he he observed any observed any in the condition of the Property significant change in Property from that depicted in the picture. picture. Counsel for Respondent Respondent stated his his objection, reasoning reasoning that the "question that the going beyond question is going beyond the scope of cross- the scope examination. Those were questions that --I — Idid not address any any of those, those, and he's now trying trying to engage in direct again." Id. at 80. Though Respondent did not ask about Exhibit 6-002 on cross examination, examination, the witness was asked about was asked about his his knowledge of Respondent's knowledge of efforts to Respondent's efforts remove debris to remove from the debris from the Property. Property Inspector Inspector Rybakowski's Rybakowski's testimony about any observable change about any change in condition of the the Property Property during the time in which Respondent used the dumpsters to remove debris, as suggested suggested on cross examination, is examination, firmly within is firmly the proper within the scope of proper scope of redirect examination. Respondent's redirect examination. objection is Respondent's objection is without merit, without and the merit, and Court did the Court did not abuse its not abuse its discretion discretion in in permitting the question. permitting the question. 29 29 iv. iv, Respondent's objection to impermissible Respondent's objection lay testimony impermissible lay Respondent argues Respondent argues that the Court abused its discretion in allowing "witnesses for Petitioner, over the continuing objections of Respondent, to testify to matter matter [sic] [sic] which they qualified as an expert nor possessed were neither shown to be qualified possessed the requisite requisite knowledge, knowledge, skills and/or credentials, under under the the Rules Rules of Evidence, Evidence, to render render an opinion as to matters/issues requiring specialized knowledge, requiring specialized skills, education and/or training such as the structural integrity knowledge, skills, integrity of the Respondent's house and/or its components, the risk factors and proper assessment of the accumulation and storage of various materials in in and on the Property viz-a-viz established fire, safety issues generally health and safety generally and under either the Philadelphia Philadelphia Housing Housing Code or Section 55 of Act Aet 135. [sic"" Resp't's Rule 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal at 135. [sic]" at ¶ 4(d). Respondent appears to argue Respondent appears argue that that Petitioner Petitioner was was permitted permitted to to introduce impermissible impermissible lay lay testimony testimony through through Inspector Rybakowski and/or Passyn. Passyn "If If aawitness is not testifying as an expert, testimony testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to to one that is ... not based on scientific, that is...not scientific, technical, technical, or other other specialized knowledge." knowledge." Pa.R.E. Pa.R.E. 701 701 Inspector Rybakowski is aaconstruction compliance Inspector Rybakowski compliance supervisor supervisor assigned assigned to the Contractual Services Unit of the Department Licenses && Inspections Department of Licenses Inspections for emergency response, response, aaunit "delegated "delegated the task of inspecting inspecting properties properties that are either declared unsafe or imminently imminently dangerous in the city..." dangerous city..." N.T. I I at 18. Inspector Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski is qualified qualified to testify testify to the findings findings of the of the Department of Licenses Department of Licenses && Inspections as aacustodian Inspections as custodian of of its its records, records, and and is qualified to is qualified to testify testify to his personal observations regarding regarding the structural integrity integrity of the properties properties that he has inspected, inspected, as such observations are well within his expertise. At no point during the June 16, point during 16, 2023 evidentiary hearing did Respondent question Inspector Rybakowski's qualifications to 30 30 i assess the structural conditions of the properties properties he inspects as an employee of the City of II Philadelphia. Philadelphia On cross examination of Passyn, Passyn, Respondent elicited that he worked twenty years in the ' construction trade. Counsel for Respondent Respondent challenged him to "describe in detail, then, the clear and present danger that the roof of the structure presented." Id. present danger Id. at 112. 112. Passyn testified to his opinion opinion about the hazards created by by the Property. Property. Respondent failed to object to to Passyn's lay opinions about the structural integrity of the Property or the assessment of the danger of the opinions accumulated materials on the Property. Id. at 112-114. 112.114, In fact, he affirmatively elicited them. them Respondent's objections are Respondent's objections are without merit. merit 5. The Court did not unduly unduly restriet restrict Respondent Respondent from cross-examining Petitioner's witnesses or examining his own witnesses. Respondent's 1925(b) Respondent's 1925(b) statement presents presents a general argument encompassing each and a general every evidentiary ruling every adverse evidentiary ruling made over the course of multiple multiple hearings. hearings. Resp't's Rule 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained 1925(b) Complained of on Appeal Appeal at 13, 3, 4. Though Respondent fails to cite 4. Though to any specific rulings that it believes were in error, Respondent's objections which were overruled by by the Court will be grouped grouped as logically as possible. similarly themed arguments Some similarly arguments proffered in Respondent's 1925(b) Statement can be summarized to say; say: "The Court abused its discretion in sustaining any of Petitioner's objections during Respondent's during Respondent's cross-examination of any of Petitioner's witnesses, or during direct any of Respondent's examination of any Respondent's witnesses, and therefore based its finding that the Property is blighted blighted and abandoned on aatainted evidentiary record." Counsel did not raise these arguments during arguments during oral argument argument on Respondent's Respondent's Motion for Post-Trial Relief, but did state during the October 11, during 11th, 2023 hearing hearing that "he can't stress enough how how [Respondent] [Respondent] has been 31 curtailed in curtailed in trying trying to address these to address these issues... especially, by issues. .especially, by way of cross-examination way of cross-examination and and challenging the testimony testimony that Petitioners Petitioners [sic] [sic] have put put forth in this matter." Notes of Testimony, October 11, 2023 2023 ("N.T. at 38-39. Counsel for Respondent (N.T. III") at Respondent further stated that was "at aaloss as to what questions he was questions [he] Id. at [he] can ask" on the direct examination of his client. [d. 66. 66 A evidentiary rulings A court's evidentiary rulings will will not not be appeal unless be disturbed on appeal unless the court is is found to to have have abused its its discretion. discretion. Tillery Tillery v. Hos. pf Children's Hosp. • Children's of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 156 1233, 1234 156 A.3d 1233, 1234 (2017). A A trial court abuses its discretion where it misapplies misapplies the law in such a a way way that is manifestly unreasonable or exercises its judgment judgment because of bias, bias, prejudice, prejudice, ill will or partiality partiality as shown as shown by by the evidence in the evidence the record. in the record. Com. Com v. Melvin, 103 y. Melvin, 103 A.3d A.3d 1, 1, 35 35 (2014). (2014). i. Unavailable documents The apparent thrust thrust of Respondent's Respondent's argument is that the the Court refused refused to to sustain his his requests that Petitioner's witnesses produce produce certain documents that counsel for Respondent Respondent alleged were intentionally alleged intentionally omitted from evidence. A party seeking A party seeking production production from from a a person not aaparty person not party to to the action must the action must comply comply with with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 4009.21. This Rule requires requires written notice to each party of the intent serve aasubpoena at least twenty days before the date of service to allow for objections which are themselves to be filed in writing. writing. Pa.R.C.P. No. No. 4009.21. At the June 16, 2023 evidentiary hearing, during evidentiary hearing, during cross examination of Inspector Inspector Rybakowski, Rybakowski, counsel for for Respondent asked whether he knew the the identities identities of the the persons persons who who complained to complained the Department to the Department of Licenses && Inspections of Licenses about the Inspections about the Property, Property, then asked why then asked why the the witness had produced no record of such in anticipation of trial. N.T. IIat 71-72. During During cross 32 examination of Passyn, Passyn, counsel for Respondent Respondent asked whether he brough the minutes of the meeting authorizing church meeting authorizing the filing filing of the Petition. N.T. I I at 111. At the October 11, 2023 hearing, during hearing, during cross examination of Stephen Stephen Arrivello Anivello ("Arrivello"), ("Arivello"), Executive Executive Director of of the Commonwealth Preservation Alliance, Petitioner's proposed Conservator, counsel for Respondent sought Respondent sought to ask the witness about the preliminary plan plan for remediation that was proposed proposed to the Court at aaprevious hearing. When previous hearing. the Court sustained Petitioner's objection When the objection to the question question "on the basis ... that it was already submitted basis...that submitted (at a a prior prior hearing, without objection) and and there was no problem problem with it," then asked counsel for Respondent to confine his cross examination to examination to the the testimony that was testimony that given on was given on direct during this direct during this hearing, hearing, he responded that he responded that he he "intend [s] to intend[s] to [cross examine] according [cross examine] according to the rules of court and the rules of court say that I may I may very very well cross examine him in regard regard to any pertinent pertinent issue in this case that he is aware of and he's aware of the finances surrounding the Property Property— especially since he had to go out multiple times, you you would would think go out and think that one could go and do an observation and come come back back and do aa preliminary report, preliminary report, but but he said he's he said he's been been out out there there several several times, and I times, and I find find it disturbing, to it disturbing, some to some extent, extent, Your Honor, Honor, that you you seem to curtail respondent respondent always always when it comes to digging digging into the information that they --— Petitioner want[s] to to present. present. When we want to dig into it, you can tell us say, `no,' and say, 'no,' you you can't do it. it. My question is: `what My question 'what are they hiding?"' N.T. III at 31. hiding?" N.T, Counsel for Respondent Respondent did not question question Petitioner's witnesses about the actual documents which documents which were were the the subject of the subject of the hearings in this hearings in this matter. He instead matter. He instead attempted attempted to make to make discovery requests discovery requests of Petitioner through its witnesses. The issue was best illustrated during the Inspector Rybakowski, cross examination of Inspector Rybakowski, where counsel for Respondent Respondent asked the witness to provide Respondent provide Respondent "with with aacopy copy of of the the calls calls that that [L & I] acted [L &I] acted on on in in regard regard to to the violations" the violations" which could identify identify individuals who made complaints to the Department of Licenses Licenses && Inspections Inspections about the Property, Property, and all pictures during his January pictures that he took of the Property during January 33 33 inspection. 14 N.T. inspection.IM NT I 85-86. Counsel for Respondent I at 85-86. estimation, [the Respondent opined that "in my estimation, [the witness] has purposely witness] purposely avoided bringing bringing pertinent pertinent documents to this hearing." [d. Id. at 85, 85. Respondent alleges Respondent alleges that the Court abused its discretion it denying denying Respondent's Respondent's "requests for an for an order order directing directing Petitioner's Petitioner's witnesses to provide witnesses to provide Respondent Respondent with with aacopy copy of of the documents the documents in in their their possession possession they they were were testifying testifying to to but but which they conveniently did not not bring bring to to the the hearing, yet the Court allowed Petitioner's witnesses to testified [sic] hearing, yet [sic] as to the contents of those hearsay documents." Resp't's hearsay documents." Resp't's Rule Rule 1925(b) Statement of 1925(b) Statement of Errors Errors Complained Complained of of on on Appeal at "¶ Appeal at 4(f). All of Respondent's All of Respondent's requests sound in requests sound discovery. A in discovery. A request request that that aacustodian custodian from the from the Department Department of Licenses Licenses && Inspections Inspections provide provide copies of the complaints they have received about aacertain property property are properly properly directed to the City City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, properly filed in writing in the form of aasubpoena, subpoena, and properly properly noticed to Petitioner twenty twenty days before the filing. Pa.R.C.P. Pa.R.CP. No. 4009.21 4009.21. A A demand that the Court order aasubpoenaed, subpoenaed, unrepresented unrepresented witness to retrieve documents which retrieve documents which are are not not the subject of the subject of aaformal formal discovery discovery request clearly delineating request clearly delineating the boundaries of the request, request, while the Court breaks for lunch, bunch, is not supported by rules of evidence or civil procedure, procedure, nor any any norm of judicial practice. The Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to declining issue such to issue such an an order. order. see N.T. N.T. I at 84 I at 84 ("[counsel ("[counsel for for Respondent]: Respondent]: Your Honor, I Your Honor, I would ask for for aaruling ruling from the Court Count that that [Inspector [Inspector Rybakowski] Rybakowski] take that that time, time, while we're on lunch break, to provide provide Respondent Respondent with aacopy copy of the calls that they acted on in regard to the violations since it's part part of the database as well as aacopy of the subpoena that he received to attend this proceeding. ") proceeding.") Petitioner represented petitioner 14 represented that those pictures pictures were contained in in Exhibit 6, but counsel for Respondent claimed claimed "No, they they are not. The pictures pictures that I I made inquiry inquiry of are the pictures pictures of the unsafe conditions that he took pictures of. of. He book ... The ones in the book said they're not in the book..The book [were] [were] taken by a a contractor person." N.T. Iat86. peron."NT.I 86. What Inspector Inspector Rybakowski Rybakowski actually actually testified was that, because he did not compile Petitioner's evidence binder, that he did not know from memory which page numbers in Exhibit 66those pictures were on. on.Id Id. at 57-59. 57.59 34 Respondent Respondent also also requested requested that that the the records of violation records of violation notices assessed by notices assessed by the the Department Department of Licenses Licenses && Inspections Inspections be stricken from the record because Inspector Inspector Rybakowski "can't identify who made the calls that prompted Rybakowski prompted those inspections." N.T. IIat 88. Though Respondent Respondent provided no no basis basis for this request, the this request, the Court notes that that"[i]f [if aa party party introduces introduces all or part pant of aawriting writing or or recorded statement, an adverse party recorded statement, party may may require require the the introduction, at that time, of any other part... that in fairness part...that ought to be considered at the same faimess ought time." Pa.R.E. 106. "The purpose purpose of Pa.R.E. 106 is to give give the adverse party opportunity to party an opportunity correct aamisleading misleading impression that may may be be created by by the use use of aapart part of aawriting writing or or recorded statement that may be taken out of context." Id. Id. The absence of the identity identity of individuals who complained to complained to the the Department of Licenses Department of Licenses && Inspections does not Inspections does tend to not tend to mislead the factfinder mislead the factfider as to the conditions giving rise to the assessed violations, and the identities of the individuals are plainly irrelevant to whether the conditions found by the inspectors actually existed. Further, it is not clear from the record that Inspector Rybakowski ever acknowledged Inspector Rybakowski exist, acknowledged that such records exist, which records belonging to the Department Department of Licenses Licenses && Inspections, Inspections, if any, any, actually actually would contain the identities of complaining individuals, or whether those identities would, would, in in the normal course of business, be included in the records of the violation notices provided provided by by the Department of Licenses Department of Licenses && Inspections Inspections to to Petitioner. Petitioner. Respondent's Respondent's remaining requests for information remaining requests information from from Petitioner's Petitioner's witnesses were too inchoate to form the basis of an order, let alone aadiscovery discovery request request or motion to compel compel discovery. The discovery. Court declines The Court declines to to address address them them except to say except to say that Respondent's failure that Respondent's failure to to develop develop his vague argument his vague about what argument about what "they are hiding" "they are hiding" renders renders the the Court Court unable to demand unable to demand that that Petitioner Petitioner produce the allegedly missing the allegedly missing documents, documents, unable unable to to meaningfully meaningfully review review its its decision not not to to issue such an issue such an order, order, and and ultimately unable to ultimately unable understand how to understand how Respondent Respondent wished wished to make to make his case or how the Court's ruling doing so. ruling restricted him from doing 35 \ I f ii. ii. Questions beyond the scope of direct examination Questions Cross-examination Cross-examination must must be limited limited to the the subject subject matter of the matter of direct examination. the direct examination. Pa. Pa R.E. 611(b). The R.E. 611(b). The scope scope of of cross-examination cross-examination is is a a matter matter within the discretion within the of the discretion of the trial court. trial court. Com. v. Com v. Largaespada, Laraespada, 184 A.3d 1002, 1009 1009 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2018). On cross On cross examination of Passyn examination of during the Passyn during June 16, the June 2023 hearing, counsel 16, 2023 counsel for for Respondent Respondent asked, asked, given given how how often he he seems to to spend observing Respondent on his Property, spend observing Property, when he finds "time to to perform perform [his] [his] duties at at the N.T. I the church." N.T I at 116. 116. The Court sustained Petitioner's objection to Petitioner's objection to this question as irrelevant and this question and beyond scope of direct examination. beyond the scope Passyn Passyn was not asked on direct examination about his time management, or his duties at the church. He church. stated merely He stated merely how often he how often he was was at at the church. N.T. the church. N.T. I I at 98. The at 98. The manner manner in which which he he spends his spends time at his time at the church is the church is not not relevant to his relevant to credibility as his credibility as aawitness. witness.'15 On cross examination examination of of Passyn, Passyn, counsel for for Respondent Respondent asked "how "how many many times times were were you directly involved you directly involved in asking [Respondent] in asking about selling [Respondent [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10846424. Public record. Not legal advice.