By Michele Evans / NYweeklyRecord.com / Date: 9/30/2026
Category: NYC Courts / Government Accountability / Taxpayer Rights / Public Records
NEW YORK CITY, NY – A Staten Island judge has ordered New York City to withdraw roughly 17,000 notices tied to its new pied-à-terre tax and redo the rollout using current records and individualized explanations.
State Supreme Court Justice Wayne M. Ozzi did not strike down the tax itself. His ruling focused on how the Department of Finance identified possible taxpayers, published a sprawling supplemental assessment roll and required homeowners to prove that their properties were primary residences.
The city appealed immediately. That filing triggered a stay, temporarily pausing the order while the case moves forward. For affected homeowners, the legal status is unsettled: the judge directed the city to start over, but the appeal allows the current rollout to continue for now.
The surcharge applies to high-value New York City homes that are not used as primary residences. City officials expect it to raise about $500 million a year. The policy is meant to collect more revenue from owners of expensive second homes, but the court found serious problems with the way the city tried to determine who owed it.
According to the ruling, the Department of Finance published a supplemental roll covering more than 900,000 properties and sent notices to about 17,000 homeowners. Ozzi said the process created confusion and unfairly shifted the burden to residents to establish that their homes were not subject to the surcharge.
The order requires the department to remove the supplemental roll, cancel the existing notices and use the latest tax and other available data to identify properties actually subject to the tax. New notices must explain the basis for the department’s determination so recipients can understand and challenge it.
That requirement addresses more than inconvenience. A tax notice can force a homeowner to gather financial records, disclose personal information, hire a lawyer or accountant and meet a government deadline. When the city’s underlying screening is flawed, those costs fall on people who may never have owed the tax.
The Mamdani administration disputes the ruling. A City Hall spokesperson said the city has implemented the surcharge fairly and in compliance with the law and will continue doing so while the appeal is pending. The administration has framed the tax as a way to make wealthy second-home owners contribute more to public services.
The homeowners who brought the case challenged the administration of the tax, not only its political merits. Their claim centered on notice, accuracy and which side must establish whether a property is a primary residence. The judge agreed that the city’s process was arbitrary and capricious.
Separate lawsuits are also challenging the surcharge itself. Former U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and casino executive Steve Wynn filed a constitutional challenge this week, arguing that the tax discriminates against nonresidents. Those allegations have not been decided, and they are distinct from Ozzi’s ruling on the rollout.
The immediate accountability question is whether the Department of Finance can build an accurate list without sweeping hundreds of thousands of properties into a public file or sending thousands of owners into an exemption process. The appeal will determine whether the city must make those changes before it collects the tax.
Leave a Reply