Landlord appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County, entered on or about May 19, 2003 after a nonjury trial (Peter M. Wendt, J.) in favor of tenant dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Final judgment entered on or about May 19, 2003 (Peter M. Wendt, J.) affirmed, with $25 costs.

We agree that petitioner-landlord failed to establish by prevailing evidence that the subject apartment was used or occupied for illegal purposes so as to warrant eviction of the elderly, stabilized tenant pursuant to RPAPL 711(5). As the experienced Trial Judge appropriately recognized in dismissing the holdover petition, no claim was made that the tenant sold or attempted to sell drugs from the apartment, from the building premises, or "at any time anywhere," and no persuasive evidence was presented to show that the apartment was "a place where drugs were prepared or manufactured." On this record, neither the quantity of marihuana (less than four ounces) confirmed to be inside the apartment nor the Criminal Court disposition [*2](an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal) of the single marihuana possession charge brought against tenant compels the conclusion that the apartment was utilized as a focal point for drug activity or that any such illegal use occurred "customarily or habitually" upon the premises (see 137 Realty Assocs. v Samuel, 7 Misc 3d 80 [2005]; Grosfeld Realty Co. v Lagares, 150 Misc 2d 22, 23 [1989]). "On a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses." (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545 [1990].)

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: July 20, 2005