decided: May 6, 1983.
DAVID L. LEVETO AND SUSAN B. LEVETO, APPELLANTS
THE CITY OF MEADVILLE ET AL., APPELLEES
Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County in the case of David L. Leveto and Susan B. Leveto, his wife v. The City of Meadville; Mayor of the City of Meadville, Michael J. Stevens; Councilman James J. DiMaria; Council Person Christine B. Land; Councilman James R. Roha, and Councilman Robert J. Rozell; City Manager David L. Wendtland, and City Engineer Kenneth Beers, Jr., No. A.D. 1980-503.
Robert S. Bailey, Shafer, Dornhaffer, Swick & Bailey, for appellants.
Russell L. Schetroma, Culbertson, Weiss, Schetroma and Schug, for appellees.
Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 171]
David L. Leveto and Susan B. Leveto (Leveto) have brought this appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County denying Leveto's request for a mandamus order requiring the City of Meadville (City) to accept the dedication of certain streets in Leveto's Edgewood Park subdivision. Leveto contended that the City was required to accept the streets either pursuant to Section 510 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. § 10510, or as a result of snow removal by the City over a period of several years.*fn1
At oral argument we were informed by counsel that subsequent to the filing of this appeal to our Court, the City adopted a resolution formally accepting the aforesaid streets. The issue of whether the City was required to accept the streets*fn2 is therefore moot.
Both parties, however, have indicated a concern that the trial court's ruling regarding Section 510 of the MPC*fn3 will have a collateral effect upon any future action by the City against Leveto for damages due to alleged deficiencies in the accepted streets. An examination of the pleadings and the trial court's decision
[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 172]
in this case clearly shows that the issue of any remaining liability on the part of Leveto was neither raised nor decided in this case. Further, it is clear that the parties do not dispute the facts surrounding the letter of February 12, 1980, which Leveto asserts triggered the running of the forty day time limit of Section 510(a). Whether these facts resulted in a deemed approval by the City of the improvements so as to release Leveto of liability under Section 510(c), see Mertz v. Lakatos, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 230, 381 A.2d 497 (1978), is a question of law which we need not resolve at this time.*fn4
The appeal in the above captioned matter is hereby dismissed as moot.
Appeal dismissed as moot.