Mamdani vows to push forward with tax on 2nd homes in defiance of Staten Island court order to scrap rollout

New York State Supreme Court Judge Wayne Ozzi sided with homeowners who sued the city over its rollout of the tax, arguing that the Department of Finance improperly identified their properties as subject to the tax. The plaintiffs did not challenge the legality of the tax but argued that the city had incorrectly “identified their homes as potentially subject to the surcharge,” despite the homes being their primary residences.

“Homeowners are being substantially harmed and penalized needlessly by D.O.F.'s method of implementing the tax law,” Ozzi wrote.

After the ruling came down, however, Mamdani said in response, “I fully believe that this law is constitutional, and we are moving to intervene in these suits because of that belief, and our commitment to standing alongside our partners in Albany to defend the surcharge,” per the New York Post.

The city’s Department of Finance published a list of more than 900,000 properties that could potentially be subject to the charge. The move was heavily criticized for “doxxing,” as it included the names of roughly 17,000 property owners. Ozzi ordered the city to remove the list and replace it with a more limited version.

A spokesperson for Mamdani said that the administration would continue pursuing the policy.

“Our administration is fighting every day to deliver for working New Yorkers,” the spokesperson said. “The ultrawealthy are fighting in court to avoid paying their fair share. They have filed lawsuit after lawsuit to protect their privilege, and we will not back down.”

The city has appealed the ruling and invoked an automatic stay, temporarily suspending the effect of the order and allowing the administration to continue implementing the tax while the case proceeds.

The tax applies to home values above $5 million and was signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul. It is part of Mayor Mamdani’s “tax the rich” efforts to crack down on wealthy New Yorkers.

“We’re gratified that the court has recognized we were right all along. The fact is that this administration failed to follow state law when it burdened New York City homeowners with proving they live in their own homes or be on the hook for paying a new surcharge,” an attorney representing the plaintiffs said in a statement after the ruling. “Now the administration must go back and do what it should have done from the start: use all the information at its disposal to make an individualized ‘initial determination’ about who truly owes this surcharge before demanding that they pay it.”