warrant of eviction had not begun to run.[FN1] Pending a hearing on the matter, petitioner's
possession of the premises was restored. Respondents opposed the petition alleging that proof of
service of the warrant is not required as no further court action is needed. Supreme Court found
that filing proof of service triggered the 14-day waiting period before execution of the warrant.
Thus, Supreme Court granted the petition to the extent that the execution of the warrant was
prohibited until 14 days after the Sheriff's Department timely filed an affidavit of service of the
notice of eviction. Respondents County of Albany and the Sheriff's Department (hereinafter
collectively referred to respondents) appeal.
"As a general principle, courts are precluded from considering questions which, although
once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances" (City of New York v Maul, 14 NY3d
499, 507 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). As petitioner was evicted
on a different warrant of eviction and vacated the premises during the pendency of this appeal,
this appeal is moot (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d
801, 811 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]). However, we find that the exception
to the mootness doctrine exists because the issue presented is substantial, likely to recur and
involves a situation capable of evading review, as tenants will likely be evicted before appeals
can be heard (see Matter of M.B., 6
NY3d 437, 447 [2006]; Matter of
Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Delaney, 176 AD3d 24, 30 [2019], lv granted 35
NY3d 912 [2020]; Matter of Police
Benevolent Assn. of N.Y., Inc. v State of New York, 161 AD3d 1430, 1431
[2018]).[FN2]