NEW YORK (Diya TV) — A Staten Island judge ordered New York City on Tuesday to cancel notices sent to thousands of homeowners and revise its rollout of a new tax on high-value second homes. The city appealed, putting the order on hold.
State Supreme Court Justice Wayne M. Ozzi sided with homeowners who argued that the Department of Finance improperly required them to prove their properties were primary residences. His ruling addresses how the city implemented the surcharge and does not strike down the tax itself.
Ozzi directed officials to use available tax records and other information to determine which properties qualify before sending new, individualized notices. He also ordered the city to remove its online supplemental property tax roll.
The city mailed notices to about 17,000 property owners and published a roll containing more than 900,000 properties. Homeowners’ attorney Randy Mastro said officials should have determined who owed the surcharge before requiring residents to seek exemptions.
The Department of Finance says receiving a notice or appearing on the roll does not necessarily mean a property owner owes the tax. Its guidance says officials sent letters when records did not establish whether a property served as a primary residence.
For the first two tax years, the surcharge generally covers qualifying second homes with Department of Finance valuations of at least $5 million for one-, two- and three-family houses, or at least $1 million for condos and co-ops. Those city valuations can differ from sale prices.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration expects the tax to raise about $500 million annually. Spokesman Matt Rauschenbach said the city would continue implementing it while the appeal proceeds.
Officials extended the deadline to submit residency documentation to Oct. 6. The Department of Finance says applicable charges will appear on property tax bills due Jan. 1, 2027.
Separate lawsuits challenge the tax’s constitutionality. Former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and casino executive Steve Wynn argue that it discriminates against nonresidents. City and state officials have pledged to defend the measure.
