Judge Pauses NYC Luxury Home Tax Rollout

A New York judge has temporarily blocked key parts of Zohran Mamdani’s luxury home tax rollout after ruling that City Hall cannot move ahead using a disputed property list that exposed the names, addresses and property values of more than 900,000 homeowners. The order from Judge Wayne Ozzi stops the city from enforcing deadlines against homeowners tied to the new surcharge and bars officials from imposing or collecting the tax from people listed on the supplemental roll until the required individualized steps are taken.

The case centers on a proposed surcharge aimed at second homes valued at more than $5 million. Attorneys for the homeowners said the city put the burden on residents to prove they were not subject to the tax instead of first determining which properties were actually non-primary residences. Randy Mastro told the court the administration had mishandled the process and said officials should have “stop[ped] the train and make them do it over.” He also argued that publishing the list effectively exposed homeowners to public scrutiny in a way that was not justified.

Mastro said the city should have used information already available to make the initial determination before mailing notices. Instead, he said, New Yorkers who live in their own homes received notices suggesting they might owe the surcharge, while many others were left scrambling to respond. Outside the courthouse, Mastro called the ruling “a very good day for all New York City homeowners” and said the city had “botched this rollout.” He also said the city had posted a list of more than 900,000 New Yorkers by name, address and property value.

The lawsuit was brought by three New York City homeowners who are not challenging the surcharge itself. Their complaint focuses on how the city implemented it. One plaintiff, Simon Hedley, eventually received an exemption after providing tax information, a fact Mastro used to argue that the city could have made the proper determination itself from the start. He pressed that point in court, asking whether the city’s errors reflected negligence or laziness.