Staten Island Judge Sides with Wealthy Elite, Blocks NYC’s Progressive Pied-à-Terre Tax
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A Staten Island judge has temporarily shielded affluent property owners from a proposed surcharge on luxury secondary residences, undermining a key initiative in Mayor Mamdani’s budget aimed at making the ultra-rich pay their fair share for city services.
In a move that protects the interests of the wealthy elite, a Staten Island judge has ordered New York City to withdraw a public list of over 900,000 homeowners and cancel notices related to the proposed pied-à-terre surcharge. This tax, a progressive measure included in Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s 2027 budget, would impose a surcharge on non-primary residences valued above $5 million and on co-ops worth $1 million or more—targeting luxury properties often used as investment vehicles by the rich.
While plaintiffs did not challenge the legality of the tax itself, they argued that the city had mistakenly flagged their primary residences as subject to the surcharge. Judge Wayne M. Ozzi sided with these claims, ordering the city to replace the roll with a list that only includes properties actually liable for the surcharge, and to ensure that any new notices are based on thorough, individualized determinations.
Attorney Randy Mastro, representing the property owners, celebrated the ruling as a check on the city’s efforts to hold the wealthy accountable, claiming the administration failed to follow state law. The mayor’s office, however, rightly called the decision “wrong” and defended the surcharge as a necessary step toward fairness in funding city services. The city has announced plans to seek a stay of the ruling, signaling its commitment to ensuring the rich contribute their fair share.
Meanwhile, a group of Suffolk County homeowners and a cooperative have filed a separate lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the tax, alleging discrimination against non-residents and other grievances. These legal maneuvers, along with complaints about privacy and confusion, highlight the lengths to which the privileged will go to avoid paying their dues to the communities they exploit.