State Inspector General Kristine Ham ann lives!

She reminded folks of her profes sional existence this week when she reported on some shoddy practices at an NYPD crime lab way back in 2002.

Never heard of Kristine Hamann?

Don’t feel bad: She hasn’t attracted significant notice since Gov. Spitzer appointed her in February.

Except, of course, for her part in Team Spitzer’s apparent coverup of its Dirty Tricks campaign to smear Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno.

In that little project, Hamann played a starring role: First, she misled the public into thinking her office had probed Spitzer & Co.’s involvement in the affair.

Then, she implied that, based on her “probe,” she’d reached the same conclusion as Attorney General Andrew Cuomo – who found that Spitzer aides acted improperly but that no one broke any laws.

So the gov, in her eyes, was clean as a whistle in the Dirty Tricks department.

But Hamann’s office never actually did a Dirty Tricks probe. She and her aides later conceded that they’d secretly ditched the review, citing a conflict of interest. A probe, they said, would’ve forced them to investigate her boss, Spitzer Chief of Staff Richard Baum.

Not that she let a similar conflict end another probe involving Baum, based on charges that Spitzer aide Steven Mitnick, on Baum’s orders, threatened a Public Service Commission member. In that case, she just asked Baum not to butt in.

Of course, Hamann has yet to report any findings in the Mitnick probe, which has lingered since April.

Or done much of anything else of note.

Yet, lest anyone think she’s totally useless, Hamann this week released the results of an NYPD crime-lab audit.

Apparently, some technicians engaged in sloppy testing of drug samples in 2002 – perhaps even “dry-labbing” (i.e., failing to examine all the evidence).

This has led to a review of thousands of samples. Many convicts sentenced on the basis of the old tests may ask to have their penalties shortened or dropped.

Yet, the lab has long since been reshuffled. NYPD brass disciplined three techs whose testing was questioned. And of some 413 cases reviewed so far, none has turned up “significant discrepancies.”

So Hamann’s report on the 2002 lab may be more than an academic exercise – but it’s not clear how much more.

Far more significant, apparently, is her role as Inspector Coverup in the Dirty Tricks campaign.

It’s reason enough to wonder why the IG position exists.