committed it. he knew before even december before the permits were applied for the door modeling was going to take place. he also knew that the owner was in touch with all of the other tenants, so it belies the state of ignorance that he does not know. that is absolutely not true. also, ms. fox would be here, and on the jurisdictional issues, she came down. she got my letter, which pointed out the disparity between which the appellant was alleging and what the reality was, and the reality is that he knew ahead of time in december about what was going to happen, and yet, in his complaint, he claims that mr. o'sullivan was some sign -- some type of demon who was using some

sort of subterfuge. if you read that complaint, there is a broad disparity. secondly, on the issue of remodeling, because that is how i make my money in korea. let me tell you, when you remodel a full building, he took out enough money, because when you go in, the pipes are all independent. you cannot just remodel one unit and one unit and one unit. you're going to put in new meters. that is what was done. as the attorney for the owner properly pointed out, this tenant has the right to move back in korea all of the other tenants have reached an agreement, and he is going to be an obstructionist, and i do not think is good for the commission to reward an obstructionist. we need to do something. if we're going to move forward,

the people that like to you, we need to do something about this. we need to punish it rather than rewarded, and you are going to punish the property owner, and that is not fair. commissioner hwang: excuse me, are you on behalf of any particular entity? >> absolutely not. i am here representing myself. i am speaking on behalf of mr. o'sullivan. i am not associated with him. commissioner hwang: you mentioned raquel fox. >> we have gone to her. when people were being evicted, that is correct. we took up the issue. thank you. note director goldstein: any of

the public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. there are two. commissioner fung: all right, commissioners. i blink first. the question here in terms of the process is to fold. one, i believe that the appellant's rights are with you

breadboards, and the question is, where those rights affected by the permit and by the owner abrogated in any sense? i do not see that. i see a difference of opinion, but i do not see any facts to substantiate that. the building owner and permit holder also have certain rights, and at this point, i would not support taking jurisdiction. commissioner hwang: i will go next. as much sympathy as i have for the appellants, it is a jurisdictional issue. i think commissioner fung's

items taken, and i am sure that he will make good on his commitments taken tonight. president goh: well, i am torn. i agree with what has been said to some extent, and i am also concerned when an alleged senior is told "we are going to give you a note one way or another, and if need be, we will eillis act, and the notices are a

little bit troubling, too, finding out after the 15-day period -- 15-day period to appeal. on the other hand, we do need to show that it was some act of the city that caused the delay in filing, so i am not sure that i see that or that i see it well enough. commissioner hwang: there are some statements on the record were a do not see any support for those statements. it is difficult here to try to make a finding of fact when all the facts are not before you,

but -- i do not know. i do not know where i am going to fall at this point. this is a difficult one, but as -- because as president goh said, it does trouble me when tenants are evicted. an inconvenience is not a small thing, and while the city has some laws to help ameliorate it, it is sometimes not enough, so that is where the conflict lies, but this is a jurisdiction request. commissioner fung: commissioners, i am going to move to deny the jurisdiction request. director fung: on the motion to deny both of the jurisdiction requests, president gohm

commissioner petersonm commissioner hwangm ijm -- ok, and vice president garcia is absent, and the boat is 2-2, and the request will be denied as a matter of what. so, president goh, should i call the next item? ok. president goh: this one, one second. commissioners, do you want a break? we have two more. let's go ahead. director goldstein: ok, we are

going to go to item number six, for the division of taxis and accessible services. this is about an appeal of a taxi medallion. jurisdiction was granted. the public hearing was held in december 2010, and it is for further consideration today. the matter was continued to allow time for the mta to about the weight. we will hear from the parties, starting with the appellant. >> three minutes, starting now. with great reluctance but with the firm belief is in the best interest of the appellants, i and went to request an appearance -- a continuance to

have the full board hear this. director goldstein: as you understand, when there is a missing commissioner, and the vote would make a difference -- >> my understanding in that in order to overturn the decision, and for your votes are needed. director goldstein: if you have three votes, " where the missing commissioner would have a difference, it would be continued. >> i'd like to ask a continuance. i would not like -- i do not want to do it, but i would feel bad if i did not. commissioner fung: we should

allow the city to respond. president goh: i am sorry. what did you say? commissioner fung: we should allow the city to respond. >> we have no objection to a continuance. president goh: ok, it looks like the next possible date of the full board, when you will be here at 1:00 a.m. would be may 25. is that acceptable? directors goldstein: you have seven items on the calendar for that night. >> yes, that is acceptable. president goh: directors goldstein just reminded me that we already have seven items on that calendar, so we will be quite late, because the next day to where we have a full board is

not until july 20. >> so we would be item number what on the 25th? >> it -- president goh: on may 25, you would be eighth, i think. director goldstein: typically, continued cases would be earlier, but someone will be at 1:00 a.m.. >> we would like to have the earliest possible date, but i feel very strongly that it is in the client's best interest to let everyone here, everyone discuss it, and everyone vote on it at the same time. commissioner fung: commissioners, given the recent history where some of the meetings of gone extremely long, i think it is unfair, not only to commissioners who are tired, but to the public and to the appellants with respect to how

much energy and how much attention we can apply to their cases, so i would suggest that we do not block this. nobody is prejudiced by this. for the final records for 2011, i would suggest that we take it out to july 20. president goh: >> the other option is to just hear it tonight, and then brought -- vice president garcia would watch the video. those could be the two choices, and the appellate might -- i am sorry, director goldstein, do you have a comment? commissioner hwang: the other item would be to re-order this and put it an -- at the end.

president goh: typically, we do not like the department to stay, but you're indicating that it would be ok with you. mr. jarvis is indicating that that would be fine with him. there are three alternatives on the table now, and we are getting what counsel. it seems that there are three alternatives on the table now. commissioner fung: i am used to the late hours, but there have been some recent meetings where i have recognized that the energy was lacking. president goh: yes, they are brutal. >> yes, they are brutal.

president goh: i would just assume here in july 20 it. we can hear it now or july 20. absolutely, please. >> just a moment. president goh: yes, please.

>> a point of information, was one of the alternatives for commissioner garcia to watch the meeting and vote? president goh: if you were to go

forward, we would continue to allow him to vote, in which case he needs to watch the video, and then -- >> then i understood. four votes. we would have five people present. president goh: i understand. >> may i talk to mr. g ebresilassie again? president goh: yes, why do we not take a short break? [gavel]

>> we are resuming be april 6,

2011, meeting of the board of appeals. >> in the interest of having every one year, healthy and happy, we will go for july, even though we do not like the length of time. we think it is the most optimal solution. that is july 21? director goldstein: 20th. president goh: is there a motion, commissioners? commissioner fung: a motion to continue it until july 20. president goh: no further briefing? commissioner fung: i think they

should be allowed a short one. if something has changed, i think that is ok, a maximum of three pages. director goldstein: do you want simultaneous briefing? commissioner fung: that would be fine. director goldstein: unlimited exhibits. the thursday prior to the hearing. mr. murray, do you understand? ok. three pages. and i called for public comment already, so i will call the roll. this is on commissioner fung's motion to continue this until july 20, 2011. president goh, commissioner peterson, commissioner hwang. the motion carries, and this matter is continued. >> thank you.

director goldstein: ok, we will move on to our last item, item number seven, appeal no. 10-134. avef abdelhlim, the appeal of a suspension of the tobacco products hills establishment permit, about selling tobacco to minors. we will start with the appellant. or the appellant's representative. >> by a.m. also going to request a continuance to a date when all five members of the board are here. unfortunately, i have to ask for that very crowded made calendar. my client has informed may that

the family is going to be going back to jordan for the month of july and will not be back until september, so i would ask for the continuance so the full board can hear and consider all the evidence surrounding this appeal. president goh: in order to grant a continuance, first, one of the commissioners has to make a motion. first, let's hear from the department. >> i am a representative of the health department. on behalf of the department, i will object to the may continuance. this is the second time. i think we were supposed to have this case -- we reluctantly granted a continuance.

i do not know of the absence of the vice president will make a big difference. president goh: ok, thank you. commissioners, if we were going to have a continuance, we would have to about a motion for a continuance, and i would be disinclined for the reasons stated by the department. commissioner hwang: in this case, they are objecting to, particularly given that this is a second request. >> he wanted to retain counsel, so he went to the office and asked for a representative. there was nothing prior to tonight. president goh: ok, commissioners? is anyone inclined to move for a continuance? like i said, i am declined, but

if there is a motion, i will hear it. i do not see a motion from anyone. we will hear it. >> this matter was a complaint of a store selling cigarettes to a minor. the hearing occurred on -- i am not sure of the date of the hearing. there were approximately 11 other cases that were heard on the same day, and the same penalty was imposed for each and every incident of a store that had sold cigarettes to a minor, and that was the standard cookie cutter approach of a 25-day suspension. this market has been in business for 37 years. there has never been in violation or an accusation of the permit or the restrictions on the sale of cigarettes to a

minor in 37 years. what their record reflected at the hearing is that an employee of the store who had just returned to work, a part-time employe you, he had just returned to work. his mother had died. he was rather distressed. the individual came into the store. showed again vacation. " the employee you look at the headend vacation, misread it, and did on this one circumstance sell cigarettes to a minor. i would like to have the opportunity to look at their identification of the minor to see whether or not that individual does, in fact, look older or younger than 18 years of age. this is an individual who, as i have said,