In Branic International Realty Corp. v. Pitt, 24 Misc 3d 940, 881 N.Y.S.2d 875 (2009), the court found Pitt to be a permanent tenant within the context of 9 NYCRR 2520.6 (j) and granted him summary judgment. The court found that Pitt had met the "code's" only requirement of continuous residency for at least six months. Petitioner appealed. The Appellate Term, First Department reversed the lower court's determination and found that in the absence of an express or implied landlord-tenant relationship, the court should have granted Petitioner's cross-motion for summary judgment. Branic International Realty Corp. v. Pitt, 30 Misc 3d 29, 30, 916 N.Y.S.2d 459 (2010). Pitt appealed to the Appellate Division. However, before his appeal was heard, Pitt had voluntarily vacated the premises. The court declined to dismiss the proceeding as moot since the matter presented an issue of substantial public interest that was likely to recur and evade review. Therefore, the court made a determination on the merits, reversed the Appellate Term's decision and granted Pitt summary judgment finding that: A plain reading of RSC 2520.6(j) reveals that the only requirement to be a "permanent tenant" is six months or more of continuous residence in aparticular hotel building (see Kanti-Savita Realty Corp. v. Santiago, 18 Misc 3d 74, 852 N.Y.S.2d 579 App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007 criterion is not the payment of rent but continuous residence in the unit forsix months). Thus, even if Pitt and Branic did not have an express or implied landlord-tenant relationship, Pitt nevertheless qualified as a "permanent tenant", entitling him to the enumerated protections of the Rent Stabilization Code. As it is undisputed that Pitt lived in the subject SRO for well over six months he certainly acquired the status of a "permanent tenant." Branic International Realty Corp. v. Pitt, 106 AD3d 178, 963 N.Y.S.2d 210 (1st Dept 2013) Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The court "remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to dismiss the proceeding solely on the ground of mootness" since Pitt had vacated the premises. Branic International Realty Corp. Pitt, 24 NY3d 1005, 1007, 997 N.Y.S.2d 111, 21 N.E.3d 563 (2014). On remittitur, the Appellate Division dismissed the proceeding as moot, but still vacated and unanimously reversed the Appellate Term decision on the law. It reaffirmed the holding of its prior decision, that under 9 NYCRR 2520.6 (j), the only requirement to becoming a permanent tenant is six months of continuous residence. Branic International Realty Corp. v. Pitt, 124 AD3d. 421, 997 N.Y.S.2d 625 (1st Dept 2015). The landlord therein appealed the Appellate Division's second decision. The Court of Appeals simply affirmed the Appellate Division's second decision without qualification. Branic International Realty Corp. v. Pitt, 26 NY3d 937, 17 N.Y.S.3d 56, 38 N.E.3d 798 (2015)