Substantial evidence supports respondent's finding that petitioner knew about the drug trafficking and other non-desirable acts taking place in her apartment and did nothing to stop it before the charges were brought. On the other hand, it is undisputed that petitioner did remove the offenders by the time of the hearing. Since petitioner was not found to have participated in the non-desirable acts, and there being no evidence of any other non-desirable acts before or since, we find the penalty of dismissal to be disproportionate to the offense and remand for imposition of a lesser penalty (cf., Matter of James v New York City Hous. Auth., 186 A.D.2d 498; N Y City Housing Authority Termination of Tenancy Procedures ¶ 13).
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.