Opinion
2012-11-20
BEAUTIFUL VILLAGE ASSOCIATES REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Petitioner–Landlord–Appellant, v. Almira GOMEZ and Shelima Mosquea, Respondents–Tenants–Respondents.
Rose & Rose, New York City (Phillip Wartell of counsel), for appellant. Almira Gomez, respondent pro se.
Rose & Rose, New York City (Phillip Wartell of counsel), for appellant. Almira Gomez, respondent pro se.
Shelima Mosquea, respondent pro se.
PRESENT: SHULMAN, J.P., HUNTER, JR., TORRES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Final judgment (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered March 14, 2012, reversed, without costs, and final judgment awarded to landlord upon its cause of action for possession. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 30 days from the service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
Evidence at trial established that police, in the course of a lawful search of tenants' apartment, recovered, among other items, multiple ziplock bags containing marijuana, a strainer and scale, each containing cocaine residue, and a substantial amount of cash. These items were found in a locked closet, for which tenant Gomez and her son had the only keys. Based upon this evidence, we find that landlord met its burden of establishing that tenant's apartment was being used for “drug related criminal activity” in violation of tenant's Section 8 lease agreement. Moreover, in light of the location, amount and nature of the contraband, an inference was raised that tenants knew or should have known of this drug related activity ( see Matter of 88–09 Realty, LLC v. Hill, 305 A.D.2d 409, 410, 757 N.Y.S.2d 904 [2003];New York City Hous. Auth. v. Otero, 5 Misc.3d 134[A], 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 51454[U], 2004 WL 2683688 [App. Term, 1st Dept.2004] ), an inference that tenants failed to rebut. Indeed, tenants failed to offer any plausible explanation for the presence of the contraband. Given the persuasive showing of tenants' knowing violation of the lease, and in the absence of any express credibility findings below, we exercise our authority to render the judgment warranted by the facts ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809 [1983] ).
In view of the foregoing, we need not address whether the strict liability standard enunciated in Department of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125, 122 S.Ct. 1230, 152 L.Ed.2d 258 (2002), is properly applied to a drug holdover proceeding brought against a Section 8 tenant.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.