Respondent Jacqueline Robinson appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Eardell J. Rashford, J.), dated March 12, 2009, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a summary eviction proceeding brought pursuant to RPAPL 715(1), and an order of the same court (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated September 2, 2009, after a nonjury trial, awarding possession to petitioner.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated September 2, 2009, deemed an appeal from the ensuing final judgment (same Judge), entered December 3, 2009, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), judgment affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Eardell J. Rashford, J.), dated March 12, 2009, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the final judgment.

The trial evidence established that, while executing a search warrant, police recovered from respondent Robinson's apartment, among other things, 209 ziplock bags of crack cocaine, numerous empty ziplock bags and a digital scale. The arresting officer, based upon his extensive experience, testified at trial that the quantity and packaging of the drugs found in the apartment were consistent with the sale of drugs. The trial evidence therefore supports the trial court's finding that the apartment at issue was being utilized for an illegal business purpose (see 88-09 Realty LLC. v Hill, 305 AD2d 409 [2003]; New York City Hous. Auth. v Otero, 5 Misc 3d 134[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51454[U] [2004]). In light of the particular circumstances of this case, [*2]including the amount and nature of the contraband recovered, the trial evidence also supports the court's express finding that respondent Robinson knew or should have known of the illegal drug-related use of her apartment (see Royal Charter Prop., Inc. v Vidal, 14 Misc 3d 139[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50283[U] [2007]; New York City Hous. Auth. v Otero, supra; cf. 855-79 LLC v Salas, 40 AD3d 553 [2007]), a finding based primarily upon considerations relating to the credibility of the witnesses.

We reject respondent Robinson's contention that the trial court committed reversible error in receiving into evidence a certified laboratory report identifying the substance in the ziplock bags as cocaine (see Charles Q. v Constantine,85 NY2d 571 [1995]; People v Patterson,78 NY2d 711 [1991]; People v Torres,291 AD2d 273 [2002]).

We also reject respondent Robinson's claim that petitioner, the New York County District Attorney's Office, was required to serve upon her a notice of termination (see 24 CFR § 966.4[l][3][i][B][2]) prior to the commencement of this proceeding, since no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the District Attorney's Office and respondent Robinson (see Bronx Dist. Atty. v Jackson, 173 Misc 2d 676 [1997]), and the District Attorney, who is statutorily authorized to maintain this proceeding, is seeking only to remove Robinson from occupancy of the apartment, not to terminate her lease (see Murphy v Relaxation Plus Commodore, Ltd.,83 Misc 2d 838 [1975]; cf. New York City Hous. Auth. v Harvell, 189 Misc 2d 295 [2001]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 17, 2010