Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Listed on Property Roll He Ordered to Be Restricted

Supreme Court Justice Wayne M. Ozzi and his wife, Lucy, are recorded as owners of a one-family home in Annadale, Staten Island, valued at $1.109 million on the Department of Finance’s fiscal year 2027 supplemental property roll. The property is well below the $5 million threshold that would subject one-, two- and three-family homes to the city’s newly proposed surcharge on non-primary residences, and below the $1 million threshold for condos and co-ops.

Ozzi issued a temporary restraining order on Monday that bars the city from publishing the supplemental roll, from taking further action based on the roll or mailed notices without individualized determinations, and from enforcing the notice deadline. The city immediately filed an affirmation indicating its intent to appeal, which it says triggered an automatic stay of the order. A City Hall spokesperson said the surcharge rollout will continue as planned.

The lawsuit challenging the rollout was filed by homeowners Rachel O’Brien, Carmine Morano and Simon Hedley. It does not contest the legality of the surcharge itself but argues that the city’s method of publishing the broad supplemental roll and sending notices to thousands of owners was improper. The plaintiffs contend the publication caused confusion and attracted public scrutiny.

City lawyers maintain that the supplemental roll is required to administer the surcharge, as the law defines covered property as all non-vacant Tax Class 1 properties. They note that the information about the plaintiffs was already available through regular property assessment records, and that Ozzi’s Annadale home appears in both the regular fiscal year 2027 Tax Class 1 records and the supplemental roll.

Legal experts said Ozzi’s inclusion on the roll, which lists roughly 900,000 properties, does not automatically require recusal. Stephen Louis, a distinguished fellow at New York Law School’s Center for New York City and State Law, said the judge’s presence on the list “did not, in my view, require the judge to step aside or disclose it to the parties.” He added that disclosure might be warranted if Ozzi had received one of the approximately 17,000 mailed notices indicating potential surcharge liability. Rebecca Roiphe, a New York Law School professor specializing in legal ethics, said the circumstances did not appear to mandate disqualification, but disclosure could be advisable to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The supplemental roll remained publicly accessible on the Department of Finance’s website on Tuesday afternoon.