While it is well settled that a tenant may, in "appropriate circumstances," be restored to possession after the execution of a warrant of eviction if the tenant was wrongfully removed from the premises (Matter of Brusco v Braun, 84 NY2d 674, 682 [1994]; see e.g. 467 42nd St. v Decker, 186 Misc 2d 439 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2000]; Davern Realty Corp. v Vaughn, 161 Misc 2d 550, 551 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1994]; see also Matter of Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp. v Pickett, 135 AD3d 518, 522 [1st Dept 2016, Saxe, J., concurring]), the failure to properly serve or execute a 72-hour notice does not affect the validity of the underlying final judgment and affords no basis for granting a motion to restore (see New York City Hous. Auth. Glenwood Houses v Walker, 56 Misc 3d 130[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50862[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; 789 St. Marks Realty Corp. v Waldron, 46 Misc 3d 138[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50073[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; 601 Realty Co. v Osman, NYLJ, Apr. 6, 1989 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; Presidential Mgt. Co. v Farley, 78 Misc 2d 610, 612 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1974]). Moreover, "[r]estitution upon motion is discretionary" (Golde Clothes Shops, Inc. v. Loew's Buffalo Theatres, Inc., 236 NY 465, 472 [1923]), and here, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying tenant's motion, as tenant failed to provide any justification for his failure to pay the judgment amount (New York City Hous. Auth. v Torres, 61 AD2d 681 [1978]). The Civil Court had already taken the breach of the warranty of [*3]habitability into consideration by giving tenant a substantial abatement on the arrears owed. In addition, tenant failed to offer any reason for his failure to seek to restore the proceeding prior to his being evicted.