far-reaching importance" (Matter of Finkelstein v New York State Bd. of Law
Examiners, 241 AD2d 728, 729 [1997]; compare People ex rel. Carroll v Keyser, 184 AD3d 189, 192
[2020]; Matter of Matzell v
Annucci, 183 AD3d 1, 3-4 [2020]; Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Delaney, 176 AD3d 24,
30-31 [2019], lv granted 35 NY3d 912 [2020]; Matter of Heggen v Sise, 174 AD3d 1115, 1115-1116 [2019]). To
the contrary, although respondents conjure far-reaching statewide consequences, they are
contextually far-fetched since the issue at hand is merely the filing an affidavit of service, which
was ultimately done here. Accordingly, we would dismiss the appeal as moot.
Aarons, J., concurs. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, without costs, by
reversing so much thereof as partially granted the petition; petition dismissed in its entirety; and,
as so modified, affirmed.
Footnotes
Footnote 1:It is undisputed that petitioner
received notice of the warrant of eviction.
Footnote 2:Unlike the dissent, we find the
issue to be substantial in light of its impact on numerous evictions.
Footnote 3:We note that Supreme Court has
the power to restore the tenant to possession subsequent to execution of the warrant (see
RPAPL 749 [3]).
Footnote 1:Notably, even the failure to file a
timely affidavit of service relative to the eviction notice and petition itself " 'is not a
jurisdictional defect, but merely a procedural irregularity which can be cured by an order nunc
pro tunc' " (Djokic v Perez,
22 Misc 3d 930, 936 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2008], quoting Ward v Kaufman, 120
AD2d 929, 931 [1986]; see Reporter Co. v Tomicki, 60 AD2d 947, 947 [1978], lv
dismissed 44 NY2d 791 [1978]).
Footnote 2:The purposes behind the bar