Commonwealth v. Succi

258 A.3d 495 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.John SUCCI, Appellant

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

v.John Succi, Appellant

No. 1935 EDA 2020

No. 1936 EDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed: June 4, 2021

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:

John Succi (Appellant) appeals from an order entered in Bucks County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition brought under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).¹ We affirm.

Quoting the trial court, a prior panel of this Court summarized the underlying facts as follows:

The testimony elicited over the lengthy trial established that [Appellant] owned and operated a construction company located in Yardley, Bucks County. Deborah Parker resided in a single family home located in Doylestown, Bucks County. In June of 2005, Mrs. Parker entered into a home improvement contract with [Appellant]. Pursuant to that contract and an addendum to the contract, [Appellant] agreed to make a number of internal and external improvements to Mrs. Parker's home. The project was to be completed in four weeks. Three months after construction began, the project had still not been completed. Due to [Appellant's] poor work, his routine absences from the project and his repeated demands for money in advance, Mrs. Parker contacted other contractors who, after inspecting the property, advised her that the work [Appellant] had done was so inferior, it would have to be completely redone. [Appellant] ultimately abandoned the project leaving asbestos and other debris littered around the property. When he stopped work, major portions of the work were incomplete and the work that had been completed was substandard. After abandoning the project, [Appellant] placed a mechanic's lien on Mrs. Parker's property. At the time of trial in December of 2014, much of the original project had still not been completed and the remaining defective work had still not been repaired.

In August of 2005, about the same time [Appellant] abandoned Mrs. Parker's project, [Appellant] contracted with Richard Schulang to perform construction work on Mr. Schulang's home in Jamison, Bucks County. Under the terms of the contract, [Appellant] agreed to finish the basement of the home which was to include framing, insulation, electric, installation of a drop ceiling, construction of a cover for a radon pipe with an access panel and construction of a mechanical closet for $28,500. He also agreed to enlarge an existing deck on the home and replace the old decking with composite wood for $6,500. This project was supposed to be completed within three weeks.

By February of 2006, after numerous delays in construction, [Appellant] stopped work. At the time he abandoned the project, much of the work had not been completed although he had received all but $1,250 of the contract price. In addition, much of the work that had been completed was substandard. The deck [Appellant] built could not pass inspection and was torn down. The composite wood decking used was improperly installed, voiding its warranty. In the basement, the electrical work did not pass inspection. Many of the outlet holes were too large and needed to be fixed. In addition, various materials Mr. Schulang had paid for were not delivered, including ground fault interrupters, door handles, deck railings and tile. A permit Mr. Schulang had paid for was never obtained. In May of 2006, [Appellant] placed a mechanic's lien on Mr. Schulang's property.

In August of 2006, a few months after [Appellant] stopped working on the Schulang project, [Appellant] contracted with Brian Hahn to add a basement to Mr. Hahn's home in Lower Makefield Township, Bucks County. Construction of the basement entailed removal of the back deck, lifting the structure, excavating the basement, laying a new foundation and lowering the structure onto the new foundation. [Appellant] agreed to perform the work for $45,000.

Although Mr. Hahn had paid [Appellant] a total of $52,600, an amount in excess of the original contract, [Appellant's] work was seriously deficient. [Appellant] initially failed to obtain the necessary permits and work was sporadic. The work site was scattered with debris. The foundation was inadequate and in danger of collapse. Because the house was not set on the foundation properly, the windows in the home would not open, tiles popped, walls cracked, kitchen cabinets pulled away from the walls and the floor sloped.

During a discussion of [Appellant's] demand for more money and his failure to obtain the necessary inspections, Mr. Hahn asked if he needed to "protect" himself. [Appellant] responded, "If you go legal on me, I'll bury you. I'll bury you financially." Mr. Hahn thereafter contacted an attorney and removed [Appellant] from the project. Eventually, Mr. Hahn was forced to expend over $160,000 to obtain the necessary permits and inspections and to bring the project into conformity with the original architectural plans and engineering specifications.

On April 3, 2007, [Appellant] entered into an agreement with Monica Cienuch and her husband, Adam, to rebuild the kitchen in their home in Levittown, Bucks County. The agreement called for [Appellant] to remove the existing sunroom, lay a foundation, erect the framing for the kitchen and install basic electric and plumbing. In May of 2007, [Appellant] and the [Cienuches] agreed that [Appellant] would also finish the interior of the kitchen. The entire project was to cost $36,000.

On May 16, 2007, [Appellant] notified Mrs. Cienuch that the construction permits had been approved. On May 21, 2007, demolition began. On May 24, 2007, Mrs. Cienuch was advised that, although an application had been made, the permits had not yet been obtained. Mrs. Cienuch took matters in her own hands and was able to obtain the necessary permits on June 1, 2007.

Thereafter work proceeded sporadically and the [Cienuches] soon began to observe problems. With regard to the foundation, [Appellant] failed to deliver the foundation material that had been agreed upon, using demolition debris instead of high-quality stone. The foundation laid by [Appellant] did not pass inspection. There were also significant problems with the framing. Although they had notified [Appellant] of the defective framing and [Appellant] had assured them problems with the framing would be corrected, the issues with regard to the framing remained unaddressed. Despite having received $30,500 of the total contract price of $36,000, [Appellant] had only completed the foundation, framing and basic plumbing. The cabinets and countertops that Mr. and Mrs. Cienuch had paid $7,000 in advance to [Appellant] were never ordered or delivered.

As a result of the issues regarding delays, materials and inferior workmanship, the [Cienuches] retained an attorney, terminated the contract and demanded a refund of $20,000. In response, [Appellant] stated that the [Cienuches] were "welcome to go to court," adding that he was going to "lock [them] in the litigation for years." The [Cienuches] thereafter retained a new contractor to repair and complete the project. The additional cost for labor alone was $24,800.

In September of 2007, [Appellant] entered into an agreement with Anthony Succi and his parents to build a special needs home for Mr. Succi's son on the parents' property in Philadelphia for $210,000. During the project, the price increased based on [Appellant's] representations that additional money was needed to address unexpected problems. Mr. Succi paid [Appellant] over $263,900. The project was thereafter shut down by the Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspection for non-compliance and lack of permits.

Mr. Succi described the status of the project at the time [Appellant] was shut down as "a shell." He further stated,

[Appellant] had constructed a foundation of concrete that was out of level. It had a 7–foot basement that leaked at least a foot of water at a minimum. It had a roof that was put on that leaked profusely. It had windows partially put in. And the whole outside was just pure plywood that started rotting because of the weather and inside had two by four's.

The Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections required Mr. Succi to demolish the house for health and safety reasons. Demolition cost Mr. Succi an additional $15,000.

On June 4, 2008, [Appellant] contracted with Stuart Abramson to build an addition to Mr. Abramson's residence in Buckingham Township, Bucks County. [Appellant] agreed to add a room, enlarge the garage and another area of the house, construct a patio and install stucco. The total cost of the project was $142,000. [Appellant] also agreed to a specific payment schedule that was tied to the completion of specific items of work. However, after construction commenced, [Appellant] frequently requested money ahead of the payment schedule, claiming that, without the money, he could not order materials. By January of 2009, Mr. Abramson had paid [Appellant] $120,000. Mr. Abramson had paid for but did not receive drywall, electric, the shingle roof, windows, stucco, heating and air conditioning, a fireplace, hardwood flooring and tile work.

In January of 2009, the Township inspected the project and issued a stop work order. Much of the work [Appellant] had done needed to be removed due to code violations. Mr. Abramson explained the resultant condition of the addition as follows:

Now I was left with a bare frame. There was nothing inside. No drywall, minimal insulation, concrete floors that were poured incorrectly. They made me bring in a carpenter and take down support structures from all the ceilings, because they weren't to code.

Mr. Abramson paid other contractors $70,000 to complete the projects. [Appellant] did not reimburse Mr. Abramson for any of the work not performed or materials not delivered.

In September of 2008, while Mr. Abramson's project was still underway, [Appellant] entered into a preliminary contract with Andrew Spicer to build an addition to his home in Pipersville, Bucks

...