Search Site

Win against City of Philadelphia

Win against City of Philadelphia. There is an old saying, you can’t beat City Hall. A retired client who was trying to enjoy his golden years in the backdrop of a worldwide pandemic was informed by the City of Philadelphia that they were going to tear down his childhood home.

The City claimed that the client had let the home turn into a dangerous condition and moved to demolish the house. Client knew it was time to bring the legal team of Kenny, Burns & McGill to fight City Hall. Kenny, Burns & McGill is a firm that focuses on commercial litigation, personal injury and criminal defense. Its legal team has over one hundred years of experience fighting for clients. Win against City of Philadelphia. An excerpt from Kenny, Burns & McGill’s arguments follow:



Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 520

1500 JFK BLVD.

Phila., PA 19102



[email protected]

A.H.                                                                :           COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

                                                                        :           PHILADELPHIA COUNTY



            v.                                                         :           November Term 2020


CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.                 :

                                                                        :           No.: 




Plaintiff, by its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in support of its Petition for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction.

A.H., (hereinafter “H/Plaintiff”) is an adult individual residing at  Philadelphia Pa 191__.

The City of Philadelphia, Department of License and Inspection, (hereinafter, “City/Defendant”) is a body corporate and politic which exercises the public powers of the City of Philadelphia as an agency and instrumentality with its principal office located at 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor,  Philadelphia, Pa 19102.


Mr. H owns the property known at 1708 N. ___  Street, in the City and County of Philadelphia. Mr. H has recently become aware that the Defendant declared his property “imminently dangerous” and on this day November 12, 2020 issued a demolition permit #CF-2020-075___. See “A” of Complaint, collectively. Mr. H has not received any notice from the Defendant. He was only made aware of a recent posting on his property at 1708 N. ___ Street.

Mr. H is in the process of obtaining a make safe permit and wishes to make the necessary repairs needed to repair his property. Moreover, the City took the outrageous measure of declaring 1708 N. ___ Street dangerous without providing Mr. H any notice and has not allowed Mr. H to conduct his own professional engineering review. Plaintiff is promptly appealing any adverse action issued by the Licenses and Inspections in regards to this property.

  Plaintiff has retained a construction/structural engineering expert who, upon information and belief, will make sure the subject property is safe and not “imminently dangerous”.

A.            ARGUMENT

Injunctive Relief is appropriate where:

  • The injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages;
  • Greater injury would result by refusing the injunction than by granting it;
  • The injunction restores the parties to the status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrong conduct.

See Valley Forge Historical Society v. Washington Memorial Chapel, 493 Pa. 491,500, 426 A.2d 1123, 1128 (1981); John G. Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc.,471 Pa. 1,7, 369 A.2d 1164, 1167 (1977). Each of these elements compels that injunctive relief be entered in favor of Plaintiff.

II.           DISCUSSION

  1. Plaintiff faces immediate and Irreparable Harm if Defendant is not compelled to: 
  2. Suspend/cancel Demo Permit #CF-2020-075___;
  3. Remove all Stop Work Orders posted on 1708 N. ___ Street and allow Plaintiff to make the property safe himself;
  4. Remove “imminent dangerous” placard on 1708 N. ___ Street;
  5. Remove any and all code enforcement violations placed upon 1708 N. ___ Street;
  6. Any other relief deemed just.
  7. Greater Injury will be suffered by Plaintiff were Injunctive Relief not to be Granted in Plaintiffs favor than will result to Defendant by Granting
    Defendant’s requested relief.
  8. Granting Injunctive Relief will preserve the prior status quo.


Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief. This relief is necessary to prevent continued Irreparable harm to Plaintiff that cannot be compensated by damages. Greater injury would result to Plaintiff if such relief were denied than would be suffered by Defendant if such relief were granted. The relief Plaintiff seeks places the parties in the exact positions they would have been had Defendant not committed the above listed infractions.

For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order granting Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.

Respectfully submitted,



Thomas D. Kenny, Esquire and Eileen T. Burns

Attorneys for Plaintiff


After numerous court hearings, attorney Burns settled the matter with the City which led to the Honorable Court on December 16, 2020 agreeing to a final order which GRANTED Mr. H’s request and saved his property from demolition. If you want to fight City Hall, think Kenny, Burns & McGill to help you in your battle. Win against City of Philadelphia.

Contact us

Please fill out the form below and one of our attorneys will contact you.

Quick Contact Form

  • NADC Top One Percent
Our Office
  • Philadelphia Office
    1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
    Suite 520
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
    Phone: 215-423-5500
    Fax: 215-231-9847
Recent Verdicts
  • Settlement Reached in Philadelphia Amtrak Accident

    In 2015, a speeding Amtrak train derailed in Philadelphia, leaving eight dead and hundreds injured. One victim hired our firm to handle her personal injury claims, and attorney Thomas Kenny was among the first to reach a settlement with Amtrak. READ MORE

  • Federal Probation Terminated–Without a Hearing

    Our client, who was sentenced to several years in federal prison and three years of probation, has been completely released from supervision after our firm filed a successful motion in federal court. The judge granted our motion without even scheduling a hearing and our client walked free.

  • Zoning Board Appeal Granted in Philadelphia

    Our firm successfully lodged an appeal with the Zoning Board of Adjustment in Philadelphia. After our firm presented the project at a local community meeting, worked with the architect to showcase the merits of the proposed structure, and publicly fought the case before the Zoning Board, our client is now permitted to begin construction. READ MORE