BREAKING: Staten Island judge blocks Mamdani’s wealth tax on 2nd homes
“We disagree with today’s ruling, but we are confident in both the pied-à-terre surcharge and the City’s ability to implement it fairly and effectively.”
Loading the front page…
“We disagree with today’s ruling, but we are confident in both the pied-à-terre surcharge and the City’s ability to implement it fairly and effectively.”
A Staten Island judge has temporarily blocked socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s tax on high-value second homes in the city, or the pied-à-terre tax.
Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Wayne Ozzi sided with a group of homeowners challenging the tax, placing it on hold until at least August 31, when a court hearing is scheduled, as their lawsuit moves forward. As part of the ruling, the city must take down its online list of homes that could be hit with the tax.
Matt Rauschenbach, a spokesman for the mayor, said, “We disagree with today’s ruling, but we are confident in both the pied-à-terre surcharge and the City’s ability to implement it fairly and effectively.” He added, “This surcharge asks those who own second homes valued at $5 million or more to contribute their fair share to the city they benefit from. The Law Department will appeal the ruling immediately which will stay the order, and the City will continue with the pied-a-terre’s implementation,” per the New York Post.
The lawsuit came after a rollout of notices to homeowners, saying that they would be hit with the tax, despite many being outside the scope of the tax. The city sent out another notice, saying that they would be hit with the tax if they didn’t file for an exemption.
The lawsuit argued that the rollout “caused mass confusion,” and that officials ignored state data to make a thorough assessment of who may be eligible.
Two of the homeowners suing, Rachel O’Brien and Carmine Morano, are Staten Island residents and had their homes listed on the published tax roll.The third homeowner, Simon Hedley, a Mamdani supporter, also received one of the notices.
City lawyers argued that the homeowners’ requested restraining order would prevent them from taking action on already filed and in progress appeals. “Enjoining the Department from taking any action on these appeals would deprive many property owners of receiving prompt responses to their appeals,” the filing stated.
“Issuing a temporary restraining order that pauses the September 18 deadline may lull taxpayers into delaying their filings, and that in turn may mean that those delayed administrative appeals cannot be processed in time to be reflected in the November 15 bills.”
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
