There's the concept of mootness. It exists because cases have been mooted.
There's talk of them ignoring the mootness issue because there is precedent for that as well.
Here's a nice quote form scotusblog on mootness and why it is a thing
With regard to that it's very clear this case is a focus for a lot of impassioned, zealous arguing, and has not been abandoned to the whims of the court alone. The fact that the state is still hand waving at the ends-means justification says they still care about their position. As do the 8 bajillion amicus briefs on both sides. As does all the attempts to moot it, and then re-moot it even more.
Additionally, when the state law was promoted, there was public discussion by those people who wanted the city to avoid SCOTUS as to if it could be used to impose the exact same restrictions. To which the answer was yes. Regardless of their intent to affect honest mootness, or to game the system while avoiding the court, the fact that the answer was yes shows that the issue is not in fact truly moot.
To add to that, NY does not have state preemption laws. The fact that statute exists means NOTHING has changed compared to the day before it existed, and SCOTUS didn't grant their mootness request then. It in fact insisted they stop dragging their ass and get past the mootness bullshit. To which the response was to get the state statute passed and go nah man it's moot yo! And then pretend they don't have to answer the court.
I still stand by my opinion that the only way this isn't getting heard is if their was some huge internal shift on how the votes would go, and granting mootness would be defensively advisable. I'm not sure that would happen even then as the implication would be the new majority could keep it in play to screw us. IMO if there were a change to the vote liklihood, it would just turn the case form a big question to a narrow question.