43
Warren judge dismisses criminal charges against owner of former Warren Packard buildings
By Ed Runyan
WARREN
A judge in Warren Municipal Court has dismissed two misdemeanor criminal charges filed in 2015 against the owner of the former Delphi Packard Electric buildings on Dana and Griswold streets.
Judge Thomas Gysegem on Thursday dismissed the charges because the city failed to properly notify owner Sergio DiPaolo of Girard the city had imposed a demolition order for the buildings.
The charges accused DiPaolo of failing to demolish the buildings by the city’s Sept. 14, 2012, deadline and occupying two or more of the buildings despite not having an occupancy permit.
Judge Gysegem presided over a two-day trial in May 2015 that ended with him asking the city and DiPaolo, 51, to submit briefs on the contention of DiPaolo’s attorney the case should be dismissed for the city’s failure to properly notify DiPaolo.
Last October, while the case was pending, Warren native Christopher Alan, owner of Los-Angeles-based AutoParkit, a parking-systems company, purchased a lease on two of the buildings and has begun to use them while attempting to get assistance from local and state officials to clean up the site so it could become AutoParkit’s headquarters.
The city, through the testimony of Warren building official Chris Taneyhill, argued in May the city had notified DiPaolo he needed to demolish the buildings by sending a demolition order to the former owner, the Delphi Corp., on Dec. 29, 2010.
Taneyhill testified DiPaolo was notified of the demolition order because Delphi made DiPaolo aware of the demolition order when DiPaolo bought the property.
Delphi, of Troy, Mich., sold the buildings to DiPaolo Industrial Developers LLC for $80,000.
That notification came in the form of the purchase agreement DiPaolo signed with Delphi on Dec. 8, 2010, Judge Gysegem wrote.
Testimony in the trial resumed Dec. 30, 2015, with Tanneyhill testifying again and several documents being admitted into evidence, according to Judge Gysegem’s ruling.
“The city ... does not hide the fact here that no adjudication order was ever served by the city upon [DiPaolo] at any time,” the ruling says.
Because this was a criminal case with the potential for jail time, “it is essential that strict procedural due process be followed,” the ruling says.
“It is elementary that a key component of that process is notice. In a criminal matter, notice cannot be given by proxy; it cannot be given via a third party – in this case, [a] corporate party. It must be given by the state, and must be given by strict rule of law.”