Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Samek

• Decision Date: 14 January 1983
• Citation: 71 Pa.Cmwlth. 209,454 A.2d 229
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, Appellant, v. Martin SAMEK, Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 229

454 A.2d 229 71 Pa.Cmwlth. 209 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, Appellant,
v.
Martin SAMEK, Appellee. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs Nov. 15, 1982.
Decided Jan. 14, 1983.

Harold H. Cramer, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Joseph Mark Maurizi, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before BLATT, WILLIAMS and CRAIG, JJ.

CRAIG, Judge.

This appeal by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, sustaining a motorist's appeal under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1550 from an operator's license suspension, relies upon the failure of the motorist's counsel to serve the Commonwealth with a notice of the appeal, which had been timely filed in the trial court, although the existence of the appeal did come to the attention of an attorney for the department on the first scheduled hearing date.

This case, along with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation v. Falzett, --- Pa. Commonwealth Ct. ---, 454 A.2d 231 (1983) involving tardy service of an appeal notice in a license suspension appeal, indicates the disturbing growth of an unprofessional practice by attorneys for motorists, consisting of filing appeals whereby an automatic supersedeas of the suspension is obtained under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1550(b), but failing to perfect the appeal with notice to the Commonwealth. One result, if the state's defense is not frustrated altogether, inevitably is to delay adjudication of the appeal in the common pleas court--thus, of course, extending the period during which the motorist has the benefit of the automatic supersedeas.

Page 230

Here the motorist has enjoyed the benefit of a stay of the suspension for over two-and-one-half years up to the present juncture because the motorist's attorney first filed the notice of appeal with the trial court on July 25, 1980. The transcribed record contains that attorney's admission that, although he allegedly planned to mail a copy of the appeal notice to the department, he never did. When the court called the matter for the first scheduled hearing, on September 4, 1980, a departmental attorney was present, apparently in connection with other cases, and he joined in a [71 Pa.Cmwlth. 211] postponement of the hearing date until October 9, an interval in compliance with the thirty-day hearing notice requirement of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1550(c).

On and after that initial September 4 hearing date, the motorist's attorney...