More than 900,000 New York City homeowners appeared by name, address and property value on a supplemental property roll published by Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration, against a mayoral estimate of roughly 17,000 properties actually subject to the pied-à-terre surcharge. That 53-to-1 ratio sat at the center of Monday's hearing before Judge Wayne Ozzi, who temporarily restrained City Hall from enforcing the surcharge, sending further notices or collecting the tax against anyone identified on the disputed roll.
What the court found
The surcharge applies to second homes valued above $5 million. Three homeowners filed suit over the rollout alone, leaving the underlying tax's legality unchallenged. Judge Ozzi found the published notices caused irreparable harm and ruled that state tax law required the city, not property owners, to make an individualized eligibility determination before contacting anyone. The Mamdani administration reversed that sequence: it published the broad supplemental roll first, then shifted the burden to homeowners to prove they were exempt. Ozzi found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits, though the underlying case is unresolved.
One plaintiff, Simon Hedley, received an exemption after submitting tax information. Attorney Randy Mastro argued that experience showed the city could have completed those determinations itself using data already in its possession.
The courtroom argument
Mastro, representing the three plaintiffs, told the court the administration sent letters to thousands of people who live in their own homes and never should have been contacted, and that publishing 900,000 names, addresses and property values amounted to a doxxing of homeowners. "The city screwed this up," Mastro said, accusing officials of failing to do their homework. City attorney Steven Banks countered that freezing the process would harm taxpayers seeking exemptions and disrupt existing deadlines. He pushed back on Mastro's characterization that the notices were "terrorizing" homeowners, calling that language offensive.
Mamdani, before the ruling, compared the certainty of Mastro filing suit to death and taxes. He acknowledged that "with any new tax, there are more questions than there are answers."
What comes next
Spokesperson Matt Rauschenbach said the Law Department would appeal immediately and that the city intends to continue implementing the surcharge. Judge Ozzi set a compressed schedule: the defense submits its order to show cause by Aug. 24, plaintiffs reply by Aug. 27, and oral arguments on the merits are set for Aug. 31.