{
  "id": 3330653,
  "name": "THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNARD FRIED et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Fried",
  "decision_date": "1978-09-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 77-1068",
  "first_page": "981",
  "last_page": "983",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 3d 981"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "232 N.E.2d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. 2d 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2860661
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/38/0368-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 330,
    "char_count": 5792,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.907,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3393881264892277
    },
    "sha256": "94f8f5cc56e36177c9560758ad7a158c69a678ab37bff1af6585d3a9c2d84342",
    "simhash": "1:60c36bcbdffed27c",
    "word_count": 968
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:21.732212+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNARD FRIED et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendants, Bernard Fried, Cherokee Lands Corporation, Community Redemption Corporation and First Church of Deliverance, appeal from a judgment order of the circuit court of Cook County levying a fine against them for violation of the Building Code of the City of Chicago. They contend that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment.\nOn April 4, 1977, the City of Chicago (plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants, charging certain Building Code violations, including loose bricks and a defective third roof truss on the south elevation from the west. On April 15, 1977, plaintiff moved for an emergency order due to the imminently dangerous and hazardous condition of roof trusses. On April 27,1977, defendants were ordered to \u201ccomplete all work to correct Building and Housing Code violations on subject property before May 20, 1977,\u201d and defendant Bernard Fried was ordered to \u201cproduce a structural engineer\u2019s report by May 20, 1977, for subject premises.\u201d\nAfter a hearing on May 20, 1977, the court, on May 25,1977, made the following findings in its judgment order fining the defendants:\n\u201c1. That the property involved herein is improved with a one-story garage structure.\n2. That the roof thereof is supported by horizontal trusses.\n3. That complaint has been made by the Plaintiff that one of the trusses was fractured and in a dangerous condition.\n4. That the Defendants in this cause were ordered to correct the said condition.\n5. That the testimony of the Plaintiff in open Court is to the effect that the correction work done by the Defendants is insufficient because the Defendants have not produced a structural engineer to testify in support thereof.\nTHAT THE COURT, therefore, finds the Defendants, BERNARD FRIED, COMMUNITY REDEMPTION CORPORATION, CHEROKEE LANDS CORPORATION and FIRST CHURCH OF DELIVERANCE, guilty for failure to adequately correct the condition of the fractured truss * \u201d\nAt the hearing Charles Taff, an inspector for the City, testified that as of May 17, 1977, there had been no compliance. He further stated, \u201cThey started working. As far as the City is concerned a structural engineer will have to testify that the truss has been repaired accurately.\u201d He said that he is not a structural engineer. On May 17,1977, he saw the premises. There were missing bricks on the north parapet wall and there were loose bricks on the front parapet wall. There was a crack in the third truss on the south elevation from the west. The photograph of the truss which he took shows that at one time the truss bottom cord was fractured completely and was sagging and that now there is a steel support beam which reaches the truss; it runs from the floor to the bottom cord of the truss. He is not a structural engineer and does not know whether that truss is supported or not at this time.\nBernard Fried, one of the defendants, appeared pro se and stated, \u201cI guess I am a defendant in this case. I don\u2019t know why but nevertheless I am here.\u201d When the trial judge stated to him that the City had \u201casked you to cure the defect,\u201d he answered, \u201cWe did,\u201d and the court replied, \u201cYou haven\u2019t really cured it.\u201d\nDefendants argue that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment. We disagree. In a prosecution for violation of a city ordinance, the city has the burden of proof to establish the violation by a clear preponderance of evidence. (City of Chicago v. Joyce (1967), 38 Ill. 2d 368, 232 N.E.2d 289.) The evidence here fully sustains that burden. The defendants were ordered to complete by May 20, 1977, all work to correct Building and Housing Code violations, including the defective truss, and defendant Fried was ordered to produce a structural engineer\u2019s report by that date. Defendants contend that the violation concerning the sagging truss has been eliminated by the installation of the steel beam. This argument, however, ignores the fact that the court\u2019s order required defendant Fried to produce a structural engineer\u2019s report. It was his duty to comply. It was not the duty of the City to produce a structural engineer. The evidence is undisputed that as of May 20,1977, the date of the hearing, defendant Fried had not produced the report ordered and had no intention of so doing. Consequently, there is nothing in the record to show that the truss defect had been cured. The trial court properly found defendants guilty.\nDefendants also argue that there is nothing to connect them with the building. As showing a lack of proof as to defendants\u2019 connection, they point to the fact that defendant Fried, who, when the matter was called, appeared pro se and on behalf of all the defendants, stated, \u201cI guess I am a defendant in this case. I don\u2019t know why but nevertheless I am here.\u201d This argument is without merit. First, it makes no reference to any defendants other than Fried and even as to him it is not a denial of a connection with the property. The language could well refer only to his later contention on behalf of all defendants that they had cured the defect in the truss. There was no specific objection at the trial that the defendants were not connected with the property. They cannot raise that contention for the first time on appeal.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nGOLDBERG, P. J., and McGLOON, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bernard Allen Fried, of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "William R. Quinlan, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Daniel Pascale and Henry Phillip Gruss, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNARD FRIED et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 77-1068\nRehearing denied October 4, 1978.\nOpinion filed September 18, 1978.\nBernard Allen Fried, of Chicago, for appellants.\nWilliam R. Quinlan, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Daniel Pascale and Henry Phillip Gruss, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0981-01",
  "first_page_order": 1003,
  "last_page_order": 1005
}