before appeal to this Court, “making the orders below, in effect, final.” 949 F.2d 504, 508 (1st Cir.1991). [E]ven assuming, for purposes of argument, that the [bankruptcy court] order then lacked finality, the subsequent dismissal of the bankruptcy proceeding makes this assumption largely irrelevant. The Supreme Court has held that “the requirement of finality is to be given a ‘practical rather than a technical construction.’ ”... Whether or not the bankruptcy court’s order was final at the time it was appealed to the district court, there is no possibility now that either court’s order will be changed or become moot, or that “piecemeal appeals” will waste the time of this court or the parties. Id. (citations omitted). See also Welch v. Cadre Capital, 923 F.2d 989, 992 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, 501 U.S. 1247, 111
holding that the final judgment was entered without jurisdiction while a nonfinal appeal was still pending holding premature notice of appeal was treated as entered on date of entry of final judgment holding that a notice of appeal is timely when filed before final judgment is entered by the district court holding that because record did not contain notice of appeal in compliance with rule 3 there was no appellate jurisdiction and appeal must be dismissed holding that there was appellate jurisdiction under principle that a premature notice of appeal from a nonfinal order may ripen into a valid notice of appeal if a final judgment has been entered by the time the appeal is heard and the appellee suffers no prejudice