Jump To

Top Caption Unanimous Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. of PA v. B. Guo

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1531, 1780-1781 C.D. 2024

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.9K)

• PDF

Unanimous Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania : CASES CONSOLIDATED
:
v. :
: Nos. 1531 C.D. 2024
Bin Guo, : 1780 - 1781 C.D. 2024
Appellant : Submitted: February 3, 2026

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM FILED: March 16, 2026

Bin Guo (Appellant) appeals the December 30, 2024 order (Trial Court
Order) of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (Trial Court) that denied
Appellant’s three Petitions to File Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc (collectively, NPT
Petitions) regarding his summary convictions for violations of a local property
maintenance code. Upon review, we affirm.
The facts of this matter are straightforward and not in dispute. On
January 31, 2023, April 6, 2023, and May 23, 2023, the City of Pittsburgh issued
Appellant citations for violation of local ordinances pertaining to Appellant’s
properties located at 237-245 Baldwin Road in Pittsburgh. Appellant was convicted
on one of these citations on February 21, 2023, and of the other two on July 20, 2023
(collectively, Summary Convictions).1 On September 4, 2024, Appellant filed the

1
In the underlying cases that make up the Summary Convictions, Appellant was cited for
and convicted of violating the City of Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances Sections 108.1.1 (Unsafe
structures), 304.13 (Maintenance of windows, skylights, and door frames), 305.3 (Maintenance of
interior surfaces), 308.1 (Accumulation of rubbish or garbage), 308.3.2 (Rubbish containers
required), 605.1 (Installation of electrical equipment, wiring, and appliances), and 605.2 (Electrical
NPT Petitions. The Trial Court conducted a consolidated hearing on the NPT
Petitions on October 8, 2024, and denied the NPT Petitions on the record at the end
of the hearing. Appellant appealed.2
Initially, we observe that an appeal nunc pro tunc is a recognized
exception to the general rule prohibiting extension of an appeal deadline. See Martin
v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of W. Vincent, 230 A.3d 540, 547 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020). Nunc
pro tunc relief is “a remedy to vindicate the right to an appeal where that right has
been lost due to certain extraordinary circumstances.” Id. It may be granted where
an appellant shows “fraud or a breakdown in the court’s operations.” Id. A
breakdown in the court’s operations occurs where the court or one of its officers or
staff is “negligent, acts improperly or unintentionally misleads a party.” Id. An
appeal nunc pro tunc may also be granted if the appellant shows that the delay in
filing the appeal was not due to his own negligence. See Borough of Duncansville
v. Beard, 919 A.2d 327, 330 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Specifically, “[t]he exception for
allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc in non-negligent circumstances is meant to
apply only in unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly
established that [he] attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable and unavoidable
events precluded [him] from actually doing so.” Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156, 1160
(Pa. 2011). An appellant seeking to appeal nunc pro tunc also has the burden of

receptacles required). See Trial Court Summary Appeal Docket Nos. CP-02-SA-0001151-2024,
CP-02-SA-0001152-2024, and CP-02-SA-0001151-2024.

2
On October 23, 2024, Appellant timely appealed the orders denying the NPT Petitions
individually to the Superior Court, which transferred the appeals to this Court. See Order in
Superior Court Docket No. 1321 WDA 2024, dated November 1, 2024. This Court then sua sponte
consolidated the appeals. See Commonwealth Court Order dated June 6, 2025.

2
proving that: “(1) he filed the appeal within a short time after learning of and having
an opportunity to address the untimeliness; (2) the elapsed period of time is of short
duration; and (3) the respondent is not prejudiced by the delay.” R.H. v. Dep’t of
Hum. Servs., 205 A.3d 410, 414 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). “The decision whether to
permit an appeal nunc pro tunc is an equitable matter and this Court’s scope of
review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court has abused its
discretion or committed an error of law.” Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety
v. Rick, 462 A.2d 902, 903 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Here, the Summary Convictions were entered on February 21, 2023,
and July 20, 2023. Appellant did not file the NPT Petitions until September 4, 2024.
The NPT Petitions provide no reason why the appeals were not timely filed. See
NPT Petitions, Original Record (O.R.) at 14-16.3 Instead, the NPT Petitions simply
state: “I told the Judge that every house in the city has code violations. I should not
be fined.” Id. At the hearing, to explain why he did not timely file appeals of the
Summary Convictions, Appellant stated only that he received “too many, so many”
notices in reference to his properties. See Hearing Transcript, October 8, 2024
(Transcript), at 10; see also Trial Court Opinion filed December 30, 2024 (Trial
Court Opinion) at 2. The Trial Court found this reason insufficient to allow it to
afford Appellant nunc pro tunc relief and denied the NPT Petitions.4 See Transcript
at 15; Trial Court Opinion at 2.

3
The Court employs the electronic pagination of the scanned Original Record.

4
The Trial Court further noted that Appellant’s Statement of Errors Complained of On
Appeal filed on November 18, 2024, does not address either Appellant’s reasons for failing to
timely appeal the Summary Convictions or why he waited over a year to file for nunc pro tunc
relief. See Trial Court Opinion at 2.

3
We find no abuse of discretion or legal error in the Trial Court’s
determination. The NPT Petitions offer no justification for Appellant’s late filing of
his appeals from the Summary Convictions.5 The only explanation Appellant
offered at the hearing was that he received multiple notices regarding his properties.
This explanation does not provide an adequate excuse for his failure to timely file
his appeals of the Summary Convictions by illustrating fraud or a breakdown in the
court’s operations or non-negligent actions on Appellant’s part. Appellant’s
explanation instead illustrates his own negligence in failing to read and understand
notifications he received, which does not support nunc pro tunc relief. See DiBello
v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 197 A.3d 819, 822 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018)
(holding that a claimant was not entitled to nunc pro tunc relief where her failure to
file a timely appeal resulted from her own negligence of failing to carefully read a
notice); see also Savage v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 491 A.2d 947, 949-50
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (noting that failure to understand a notice represents negligence
on the part of claimant who received notification).

5
To the extent Appellant contends in his Concise Statement of the Errors Complained of
On Appeal (Concise Statement) that he filed his appeals from the Summary Convictions late
because he did not receive the judgments on time, the Concise Statement offers no specifics about
when he received the judgments or how they were late. See O.R. at 31. Further, Appellant offers
no argument in support of this claim in either his principal brief or his reply brief to this Court.
See Appellant’s Br. & Appellant’s Reply Br. Accordingly, Appellant has waived this claim. See
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (“[W]here an appellate brief fails to
provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in
any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.”); Berner v. Montour
Township, 120 A.3d 433, 437 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (ruling that a party’s failure to sufficiently
develop an issue in a brief constitutes waiver of the issue); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).

4
For these reasons, we affirm the Trial Court Order.6

6
Because we determine that the Trial Court did not err in denying the NPT Petitions, we
need not examine the claims of substantive Trial Court error raised in Appellant’s untimely appeals
of the Summary Convictions.

5
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania : CASES CONSOLIDATED
:
v. :
: Nos. 1531 C.D. 2024
Bin Guo, : 1780 - 1781 C.D. 2024
Appellant :

PER CURIAM ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2026, the December 30, 2024 order
of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County is AFFIRMED.