67 N.Y.2d 957 (1986)
r
r
An entity can be considered a residential tenant under Rent Stabilization Law, but the protections of rent stabilization require an identifiable individual with the right to demand a renewal lease, ensuring the apartment isn’t perpetually subject to rent stabilization without a permanent resident.
r
r
Summary
r
This case concerns whether a group home for adolescent girls, operated by the Jewish Child Care Association (JCCA), is entitled to the protections of the Rent Stabilization Law. The landlord, Koenig, sought to evict JCCA. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision that JCCA was a residential tenant under the law. The dissent argued that rent stabilization requires an identifiable individual with the right to demand a renewal lease, which JCCA, as an organization operating a temporary residence for children, could not provide. The majority found that the issue of primary residence was not properly before the court in this holdover eviction proceeding.
r
r
Facts
r
JCCA operated a group home for adolescent girls in an eight-room apartment in Manhattan since 1955. The apartment was decontrolled in 1968. The last lease permitted occupancy by up to 10 persons, including at least one adult, at a monthly rental of $490.26. A cooperative plan became effective in 1977, and Jerome Koenig acquired the shares allocated to the apartment and sought to evict JCCA.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Koenig initiated a holdover proceeding in Civil Court to evict JCCA. The Civil Court ruled in favor of JCCA. The Appellate Term reversed. The Appellate Division reinstated the Civil Court’s judgment, concluding that JCCA’s group home was entitled to the rights of a family under rent stabilization. Koenig appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether JCCA, as an organization operating a group home, can be considered a residential tenant entitled to the protections of the Rent Stabilization Law, specifically concerning eviction proceedings.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because on the specific facts and circumstances presented, JCCA occupies the subject apartment as a residential tenant as the lease provides and an entity can be a residential tenant under the Rent Stabilization Law.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division that JCCA occupied the apartment as a residential tenant, as provided by the lease itself, and that an entity can be a residential tenant under the Rent Stabilization Law. Because the petitioner, Koenig, did not meet the requirements of the Rent Stabilization Code § 54 (A), he was not entitled to a judgment evicting JCCA. The court emphasized that the specific issue of whether JCCA occupied the apartment as a primary residence was not properly before the court in this holdover eviction proceeding.
r
The dissenting judge, Titone, argued that to claim rent stabilization protections, JCCA had to establish the apartment was its primary residence. He argued that under the primary residence test, there must be an identifiable individual with the right to demand a renewal lease. Titone cited Matter of Cale Dev. Co. v Conciliation & Appeals Bd., stating that rent stabilization was not intended to place a corporate tenant’s leasehold estate in perpetual trust. Since the occupants were temporary children supervised by rotating staff, no one lived in the apartment on a permanent basis, and no individual could claim primary tenancy. Therefore, the dissent concluded that JCCA was not entitled to rent stabilization.
r
The dissent’s argument hinged on the need for a