New York City and New York State changed their laws AFTER SCOTUS granted cert. So at the time the court took the damned case, the old law was in effect.
I've been reading the transcript of the oral arguments (here:https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_m64o.pdf) and the liberals on the court all were focused on why the case sholdn't be mooted, and the conservatives focused on the restrictions to travel that still apply, such as not being able to make any deviations from a direct trip from home to the range with your unloaded and locked firearm.
My bet is that Roberts sides with the liberals and declares that the changes to the law has rendered the case moot.
This wouldn't be a bad outcome. Because it would indicate (to me) that we need more SCOTUS turnover before a national reciprocity case comes before the Court.
Deplorables in NJ and similar Blue States can't carry while there have been awesome gains in pro-carry States. I'd love for SCOTUS to come over the top like Walter Payton and give us national reciprocity. However, my fear of Roberts penning a 5-4 anti-CCW opinion that kills it for the 40+ states with generous CCW makes me clench my teeth and wish for NO carry case at this time.
Maybe I'll change my mind when RBG or some like-minded Justice retires and we get a good guy or gal in there. Until then, I don't want to gamble with the gains we've made at the state level.
I would wonder why, if it is so, that the plaintiffs did not include in their prayer for relief that this law too be declared un-Constitutional? It certainly makes some opportunities to exercise the right so inconvenient as to reduce if not eliminate them. Perhaps this is a fatal flaw in New York's attempt to moot the case.