What the judge ordered
On Tuesday, September 29, Justice Wayne M. Ozzi of State Supreme Court in Richmond County annulled the city's rollout of the pied-à-terre tax and told the Mamdani administration to start over, siding with the homeowners who sued in August. "Homeowners are being substantially harmed and penalized needlessly" by the city's "method of implementing the tax law," he wrote, according to The New York Times. Crain's reports that he found the Department of Finance's launch "arbitrary, capricious" because it pushed the job of working out who owes the tax onto property owners.
The order is specific. Per the Times and Crain's, the city must take down the online list of nearly one million "properties that may be subject to the charge" and replace it with a limited version showing only properties actually subject to the tax; cancel the roughly 17,000 notices it mailed in July; narrow the list of recipients after doing more research; and send new notices that explain, property by property, how the city decided the surcharge applies.
The plaintiffs are Rachel O'Brien, Carmine Morano and Simon Hedley, joined later by Steven Shore, Sandra Jacobus Shore, Carla Stearns and Kenneth Fishel. Their lawyer, Randy Mastro, a former first deputy mayor, said after the ruling: "City Hall botched this rollout and should have just admitted the errors and fixed its own mistake, instead of wasting time and taxpayer dollars by fighting it in court."
What did not change
The tax is still law. The lawsuit never challenged the statute, only the way the Department of Finance carried it out, and Tuesday's decision does not touch the surcharge itself: for condos and co-ops used as second homes it applies from a DOF market value of $1,000,000, and for one- to three-family homes from $5,000,000, at the same rates as before. Anyone who is genuinely a non-primary owner of a unit over the threshold is in the same position on Wednesday morning as on Monday night.
What is uncertain is timing. The Times notes that it is not clear how the decision affects the city's ability to collect the money while the case continues: the first property-tax bills typically go out in November, and the money must be in by spring for this fiscal year. Both outlets report that the city is expected to appeal and to ask for a stay of the order so the rollout can continue in the meantime. City Hall had not commented by the time this was written.
The October 6 deadline: what we know and what we do not
Crain's reads Tuesday's decision as scrapping the October 6 exemption deadline, on the logic that the notices behind it are cancelled and the city must re-notify. The Times does not go that far, and the city has not said anything. We are not going to tell you the deadline is gone, because the last time a Staten Island order paused this rollout, on August 10, the Appellate Division let the city keep going three days later. A stay this week would put October 6 right back on the calendar.
So the advice is the same as in August. If you received a notice and the apartment is your primary residence, or a family member's or a tenant's, file the exemption anyway. It costs nothing, it is on the record whichever way the stay goes, and the city has already approved thousands of them. If you are a genuine second-home owner, nothing about your liability changed on Tuesday; use the time to get your documents and your DOF market value straight, because a new, better-researched notice is what the order requires the city to send you.
One thing the order does change for people who ignored the first letter: the city is now required to explain, for each property, how it concluded the surcharge applies. If your first notice arrived with no reasoning, the next one should not.
How the rollout unravelled
The July list included every residential property type eligible for the surcharge with no distinction for value or primary residence, which is what drew the doxxing accusations. From it the city used exemption records to mail about 17,000 owners. According to court papers described by the Times, the Department of Finance only received 2025 state income-tax data on August 12, after the suit was filed, and used it to tell 1,251 people they do not owe the surcharge. Crain's puts the exemptions the city had already granted at 3,655; the Times reports about 4,700 proofs of residency approved as of September 16, with thousands more under review. The city also sent updated notices to 11,189 owners saying its records do not show the home as a primary residence, at least 6,400 of them held through trusts or LLCs.
Mastro, who told the court he had himself received one of the follow-up letters about his 83rd Street townhouse, called the corrections proof the administration had "screwed up big time": "They didn't do their homework, and they are still trying to pass the buck." Corporation Counsel Steven Banks argued the suit was premature because it challenged an initial determination rather than a final one, that five of the seven plaintiffs had already been exempted and the other two never got a letter, and that "criticism doesn't equal illegal action." Of Mastro he said: "He's entitled to his opinions. He's not entitled to his own facts."
The numbers matter for the budget fight underneath the case. The state projected the surcharge would reach about 13,000 properties and raise roughly $500 million a year; Crain's calculates that after the exemptions and correction letters, the count of properties still on the hook is already below 13,000. The mayor has said he remains confident in the $500 million figure.
What to watch
Three things, in order. First, whether the city files its appeal and stay motion with the Appellate Division, Second Department, and how fast that court acts; in August it took three days. Second, whether the Department of Finance takes the list down and cancels the notices, or keeps operating on the theory that its appeal suspends the order, as it did after the August 10 restraining order (we checked then, and we will check again). Third, what the November bills say. Our legal challenges tracker and the 24/7 phone line are updated as each of those lands.
Questions owners ask
Did the judge strike down the pied-à-terre tax?
No. The lawsuit never asked him to. Justice Ozzi annulled the way the Department of Finance rolled the tax out: the public list, the 17,000 notices and the lack of research behind them. The statute, the $1 million condo and co-op threshold, the $5 million threshold for one- to three-family homes and the rates are all unchanged.
Is the October 6 exemption deadline still in effect?
It is in limbo. Crain's reports the decision scraps the deadline because the notices behind it are cancelled; the city is expected to seek a stay, and in August an appellate stay restored the rollout within three days. If you received a notice and the home is a primary residence, file the exemption now: it costs nothing and it counts whichever way the stay goes.
My July notice was cancelled by the order. Should I do anything?
If the home is your primary residence, or a family member's or tenant's, file the exemption anyway and keep the confirmation. If it is a second home over the threshold, your liability did not change; expect a new notice that explains the city's reasoning, and have your documents and DOF market value ready.
What happens to the first payment?
The surcharge is still scheduled to appear with the property-tax bills that go out in November and to be collected by spring. The Times reports it is not yet clear how the ruling affects collection while the case continues; the city's stay request will decide that in the short term.
Sources
- The New York Times — Judge Orders New York to Scrap Rollout of Second-Home Tax and Start Over (Mihir Zaveri, Sept. 29, 2026)
- Crain's New York Business — Staten Island judge scraps pied-à-terre tax rollout (Kathryn Brenzel, Sept. 29, 2026)
- Our prior coverage: the August 10 restraining order · the August 13 appellate order letting the rollout continue · the August 31 hearing