City and County of San Francisco v. Bezhanski CA1/5

Filed 10/10/23 City and County of San Francisco v. Bezhanski CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff and Respondent, A167570 v. STILIYAN BEZHANSKI, (City & County of San Francisco Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CGC-21-594112)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This appeal arises from a default judgment entered against defendant Stiliyan Bezhanski after plaintiff City and County of San Francisco (City & County) filed a complaint for collection of $48,174.03 in unpaid administrative penalties for multiple violations of the San Francisco Administrative Code (S.F. Administrative Code). Bezhanski, proceeding in propria persona at all relevant times, did not move in the trial court to set aside the default and resulting judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.) Nonetheless, Bezhanski argues on appeal that the City & County lacked authority under the general law to impose administrative penalties in excess

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

1

of $1,000 for a single code violation, citing Government Code sections 25132 and 36901. It is well established that judgments and orders are presumed correct and error must be affirmatively shown on appeal. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) As a consequence of this rule, the appellant (here, Bezhanski) has the burden of providing the court with an adequate record to determine whether any error was committed below. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) Moreover, because the reviewing court must make all presumptions in favor of the validity of the judgment, failure to provide an adequate record on an issue raised on appeal requires that the issue be resolved against the appellant. (Id. at pp. 1295–1296; Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 576.) In this case, the record on appeal consists of an appendix that includes a declaration from a senior analyst with the City & County’s Planning Department, Zoning and Compliance Division, Office of Short-Term Rentals. According to this declaration, a hearing officer determined that a residential unit on Bezhanski’s property was in violation of S.F. Administrative Code chapter 41A for being offered and/or operated for an unauthorized tourist or transient use. Bezhanski was assessed $42,350 in administrative penalties. This amount was calculated as follows: (1) $39,930 in penalties for notice of violation (NOV) 1, consisting of 66 days times $484 per unit, per day ($31,944 total) plus $7,986 in enforcement fees; and (2) $2,420 for NOV 2, consisting of 2 days times $968 per unit, per day ($1,936 total) plus $484 in enforcement fees. The record on appeal also includes the default judgment awarding the City & County a total of $48,174.03. This amount includes $42,350 in