Staten Island Judge Defends Property Rights, Halts NYC’s Punitive Pied-à-Terre Tax Scheme
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 blocked New York City’s controversial plan to impose a punitive surcharge on high-value secondary residences, upholding due process and protecting homeowners from bureaucratic overreach and unfair targeting.
In a victory for property rights and common sense, a Staten Island judge has ordered New York City to remove a public list of over 900,000 homeowners and cancel mailed notices regarding the city’s proposed pied-à-terre tax. The tax, part of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s 2027 budget, would slap a surcharge on non-primary residences valued above $5 million and on co-ops worth $1 million or more—an aggressive move targeting successful property owners and investors.
The plaintiffs did not dispute the legality of the tax itself but pointed out that the city had wrongly identified their primary homes as subject to the surcharge, exposing them to bureaucratic hassle and potential financial harm. Judge Wayne M. Ozzi ruled in their favor, ordering the city to replace the roll with a list that only includes properties actually liable for the surcharge and to ensure any new notices are based on individualized, fact-based determinations.
Attorney Randy Mastro, representing the homeowners, praised the decision as a rebuke to the administration’s disregard for state law and due process. The mayor’s office, however, doubled down, calling the ruling “wrong” and defending the surcharge as a so-called fairness measure—ignoring the burdens it places on law-abiding property owners. The city plans to seek a stay of the ruling, signaling its intent to continue its assault on property rights.
Separately, Suffolk County homeowners and a cooperative have filed a lawsuit challenging the tax’s constitutionality, citing discrimination against non-residents, retroactive application, and undue burdens. The suit also criticized the public roll and mailed notices for violating privacy and creating confusion, further exposing the city’s reckless approach to tax policy.