# Fassman v. SKROCKI

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · August 23, 1978 · 37 Pa. Commw. 302

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862701

## Case

- **Full name:** Raymond J. Fassman, Appellant v. Stanley A. Skrocki Et Al.
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 23, 1978
- **Citations:** 37 Pa. Commw. 302; 390 A.2d 336; 1978 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1266
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blatt
- **Judges:** Bowman, Crumlish, Wilkinson, Menoer, Rogers, Blatt, Disalle
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9862701

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
Judge Blatt :
Although I concur in the result reached here, I do not agree with that portion of the majority concerning the availability of mandamus actions in zoning appeals.
Mandamus, of course, is an extraordinary writ used to compel performance of a purely ministerial or mandatory duty where there exists a clear legal right in the plaintiff and a corresponding duty in the defendant. Hilton v. State Employees’ Employment Retirement Board, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 639 , 353 A.2d 883 (1976). I concur in the majority’s conclusion that an action in mandamus will not lie here but, contrary to the reasoning of the majority, I believe that a suit in mandamus will lie to compel the issuance of building or zoning permits without an appeal of their denial to the Zoning Hearing Board when the plaintiff is clearly entitled to such permits under the controlling regulations. See Vagnoni v. Bridgeport Borough Council, 420 Pa. Pa. 411, 218 A.2d 235 (1966); Verratti v. Rid *309 ley Township, 416 Pa. 242 , 206 A.2d 13 (1965); Monroeville v. Effie’s Ups and Downs, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 279 , 315 A.2d 342 (1974). I view a mandamus action under such circumstances to be appropriate under Section 909 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 1 53 P.S. §10909. I believe that mandamus was unavailable to the appellant here because he did not have a clear legal right to the reissuance of the building permits. This was because he failed to comply with all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance under which they were issued. See generally Unger v. Hampton Township, 437 Pa. 399 , 263 A.2d 385 ; Suburban Group, Inc. v. Gittings, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 295 , 348 A.2d 490 (1975).
Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. §10101 et seq.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862701. Public record. Not legal advice.