August 12, 2026 09:00 AM PST
(PenniesToSave.com) – New York City published a property roll carrying the names, addresses and property values of more than 900,000 homeowners. Then the Department of Finance mailed roughly 17,000 of them a notice warning that they might owe a new surcharge on second homes unless they filed for an exemption. A number of the people who opened those envelopes say they were sitting in their only home when they read them.
Three of them sued on Friday, August 7. A Staten Island judge ruled against the city on Monday and ordered the list taken down. By Tuesday morning the president was posting about it. And through all of that, the tax is still being collected, because the city appealed within hours and the appeal put the judge’s order on hold.
This is not really a fight about whether wealthy people should pay more. It is a fight about who has to prove what, and who absorbs the cost when a government office gets a record wrong.
Quick Links
- What Did The City Publish, And What Was On It?
- Who Actually Owes The Pied-Γ -Terre Tax?
- Why Did Three Homeowners Sue Over A Letter?
- What Did The Judge Order, And Is The List Still Up?
- Why Is The President Weighing In On A City Tax?
- What Should Homeowners Everywhere Take From This?
What Did The City Publish, And What Was On It?
The document at the center of this dispute is a property tax roll that the city posted online last month [5]. Reporting describes it as carrying more than 900,000 New York City property records, listed by owner name and address [5][6]. Attorneys challenging the rollout have said in court that the roll also displayed property values [4].
The Department of Finance has been direct about what the roll is and is not. According to the agency, the roll includes family homes as well as co-ops and condominium units, but the vast majority of the properties and units listed are not subject to the surcharge [5]. In other words, appearing on the list was never the same thing as owing the tax. The city has also explained why it went public at all. A department spokesperson said the roll was released for public inspection as required by state law, and that the agency would then work from that list to identify which properties may actually be subject to the new surcharge [7]. City Hall characterized the publication as standard protocol whenever a new tax is enacted [7].
What the department did not explain is how it arrived at a list that large, or why it attached owner names to it [7]. The city contains more than 1.1 million owner-occupied homes, and the Post counted over 960,000 residences and individuals on the roll, against roughly 13,000 properties the tax was originally sold as targeting [7]. Among the addresses were around two dozen modest homes on Chaffee Avenue in working-class Throggs Neck in the Bronx, and dozens more on Challenger Drive on Staten Island, where values ran from the mid $500,000s to the low $800,000s [7]. The Breezy Point Shopping Center in Rockaway, Queens, an outdoor mall, also appeared [7].
That distinction did not travel well. Mayor Zohran Mamdani had put wealthy residents on notice to check their mailboxes when they returned to the five boroughs [6], and the publication of the roll landed for many ordinary owners as an accusation rather than a routine filing. The confusion was compounded by a simple design problem. Most of the properties on the roll appeared to fall outside the tax’s actual scope, which covers only unoccupied, non-primary residences [6]. A homeowner scanning the list had no straightforward way to tell which category they were in.
Sitting lawmakers turned up on it too. Council Minority Leader David Carr, a Staten Island Republican, found his own condo listed, and Councilwoman Gale Brewer found the Upper West Side brownstone she has occupied since 1994 [7].
“I’ve been living in [my place] 365 days a year since 1994.”
Councilwoman Gale Brewer, on finding her home on the roll [7]
Then came the notices. The Department of Finance mailed roughly 17,000 owners a letter warning that they could face a five-figure tax bill unless they requested an exemption [6].
Who Actually Owes The Pied-Γ -Terre Tax?
The surcharge is narrower than most of the coverage suggests. As approved by state lawmakers and Governor Kathy Hochul in the spring, it applies to one- to three-family homes worth at least $5 million, and to co-ops and condominiums valued at $1 million or more, in both cases only where the property is an unoccupied, non-primary residence [6][2]. A family living full time in a $1.2 million condo is outside the law entirely. That is precisely what the plaintiffs say the city failed to work out before it started mailing.
The tax was rolled out as part of Mamdani’s fiscal year 2027 budget, pitched as a way to close the city’s budget gap [5]. Mamdani announced it on Tax Day with a projection of $500 million in annual revenue. Weeks later, New York City Comptroller Mark Levine put the figure between $340 million and $380 million [3]. That is a drop of as much as a third before a single dollar was collected, which is worth noting plainly for anyone weighing the policy against the disruption it has caused.
Mamdani has framed the scale as modest, pointing out that roughly 17,000 homeowners are potentially affected in a city of 8.5 million [4]. That framing is accurate as far as it goes. It also sits awkwardly next to a published roll more than fifty times that size. For homeowners anywhere trying to understand how property taxes factor into the real cost of owning, the gap between those two numbers is the whole story.
Why Did Three Homeowners Sue Over A Letter?
Three petitioners, Simon Hedley, Rachel O’Brien and Carmine Morano, filed suit on Friday against Mamdani and the city’s Department of Finance director [5]. O’Brien and Morano are the wife and father of City Councilman Frank Morano, and both are Staten Island residents whose homes appeared on the published roll. Hedley, a Chelsea resident who has described himself as a Mamdani supporter, received one of the 17,000 mailed notices [6].
The most important thing to understand about the case is what it does not argue. The plaintiffs are not challenging whether the surcharge is legal [5][4]. They are challenging how it was carried out. Their filing alleges the city incorrectly identified their primary residences as potentially subject to the tax [5], failed to make the individualized determination that state law requires before mailing notices, and improperly shifted onto homeowners the burden of proving they do not owe [4]. The suit says the city acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” [3].
“Families should not be forced to correct the government’s mistakes.”
Rachel O’Brien, petitioner [5]
The lawsuit also argues that the city ignored state data it had specifically been granted access to for exactly this purpose, and that the resulting mess caused mass confusion among longtime New Yorkers scrambling to prove their bona fides against a one-month deadline [6]. The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the notices and the roll unlawful, remove the list from public view, pause any obligation to respond, and halt enforcement until the case is decided [5]. They are represented by Randy Mastro, who served as first deputy mayor under former Mayor Eric Adams [5][1].
What Did The Judge Order, And Is The List Still Up?
Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Wayne Ozzi granted a temporary restraining order on Monday [4][6]. He found that the notices caused irreparable harm because they never explained why a given property had been flagged, and that the city, not the property owner, was required to make the initial determination [4]. He found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits given the city’s missteps, while stressing that the underlying case has not been decided [4]. He said he could not undo the notices already sent but could prevent further mistakes, and that the city had not done its due diligence [4]. Outside court, Mastro said the city “screwed this up” [4].
The city’s counterargument deserves a fair hearing, because it is more substantive than the headlines allowed. In its filing, the Department of Finance said it had already received 3,801 submissions challenging its initial primary-residence determination, with in-progress appeals potentially totaling near 8,000 [6]. City lawyers argued that freezing the process would stop the agency from acting on those appeals and deprive owners of prompt responses [6][4]. They warned that pausing the September 18 deadline “may lull taxpayers into delaying their filings”, which could push appeals past the November 15 bills [6].
Pausing the deadline could push appeals past the November 15 bills.
The city’s argument against the restraining order [6]
Here is the part most coverage buried. The city moved to appeal within hours, which triggered an automatic stay of the order [3][1]. The rollout is continuing and the surcharge remains in effect pending a higher court hearing that has not yet been scheduled [2]. A mayoral spokesman said the Law Department would appeal immediately and that the city would proceed with implementation [4][6]. If you read a headline saying the tax was blocked, that is not where things stand.
Why Is The President Weighing In On A City Tax?
On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he was looking to see whether the federal government has “any legal right to avert this disaster” [1]. He called the surcharge a dangerous political experiment that would destroy the city and state, described the rollout as pure amateur hour, and said the tax must be stopped [2][3].
His own exposure is a live question and the reporting does not agree. Politico reports that Trump’s Trump Tower penthouse carries a Department of Finance assigned market value of about $6 million and is likely subject to the tax, and that his Fifth Avenue property appears on the 900,000-home roll, though whether he received a notice is unknown [1]. CNBC reports that it is unclear whether Trump or his immediate family would be subject [3]. He changed his primary residence from Manhattan to Florida in 2019 [1][3].
Trump also argued the levy is driving thousands of people out of the city, canceling out whatever revenue it raises [3][1]. That claim is contested. Some studies show New York’s share of millionaires has declined in recent years, while others dispute the idea that the wealthy relocate because of state taxes [3]. Citadel CEO Ken Griffin threatened to move to Miami, but Vornado CEO Steven Roth said Griffin was not abandoning his New York plans [3]. Trump has tried this route before. His attempt to end federal approval of congestion pricing was blocked by a federal judge [1].
What Should Homeowners Everywhere Take From This?
Most readers will never own a $5 million second home. The part of this story that travels has nothing to do with the tax rate and everything to do with the sequence. A government office used its own records to flag a property, published the result, then asked the owner to disprove it against a deadline. When the burden of proof runs from the citizen toward the government instead of the other way around, an administrative error stops being the agency’s problem and becomes a line item in somebody’s household budget.
The dates matter for anyone caught in it. After backlash, Mamdani extended the exemption deadline by four weeks to September 18 [5]. Homeowners who miss that date can still appeal to the city’s Tax Commission through March 2027 [5]. In court, the schedule runs faster: the defense order to show cause was due August 24, plaintiffs’ replies August 27, and oral arguments on the merits are set for August 31 [4]. The appellate track is separate and unscheduled [2]. Bills are expected to reflect processed appeals by November 15 [6].
The practical lesson applies in any county in the country. Check how your assessor classifies your property before a notice shows up, keep documentation that establishes primary residence, and treat any government letter with a deadline as time-sensitive rather than junk. One plaintiff resolved his own case in a day simply by uploading a tax return [6]. Building the habit of keeping clean records of what you pay and when is what makes that kind of fast response possible.
Final Thoughts
Reasonable people disagree about whether owners of multimillion-dollar second homes should pay a surcharge. That argument was settled in Albany, and the lawsuit now in front of Justice Ozzi does not reopen it. What is genuinely at issue is narrower and, for most households, more important: whether a city may publish hundreds of thousands of property records, mail warnings to thousands of owners without explaining why, and then treat the resulting scramble as the homeowner’s responsibility to sort out.
Governor Hochul, who championed the levy, told reporters on Monday that the state was not responsible for the rollout and that implementation was up to the city tax department [6]. A day later, after Trump’s post, she defended the policy and said “Donald Trump ought to focus on all the pain he’s causing New Yorkers”, pointing to grocery prices and tariffs [2]. Both things can be true. A policy can be defensible in principle and still be administered in a way that costs ordinary people time, money and peace of mind.
A policy can be defensible in principle and still be administered badly enough to matter.
The case is unresolved and the surcharge is still being collected. Whatever the higher court decides, the episode is a reminder that the cost of a rushed government rollout is rarely paid by the people who rushed it. If an unexpected bill would strain your finances, the time to build a household budget that can absorb a surprise is before the envelope arrives.
Works Cited
[1] Chadha, Janaki. “Trump Lambasts Pied-Γ -Terre Tax He Will Likely Have to Pay.” Politico, 11 Aug. 2026, politico.com.
[2] Troutman, Matt, and Hannah Fierick. “Trump Rips Hochul, Mamdani Pied-Γ -Terre Tax as ‘Amateur Hour’ That’ll ‘Ruin’ NYC.” New York Post, 11 Aug. 2026, nypost.com.
[3] Breuninger, Kevin. “Trump Says NYC Pied-Γ -Terre Tax ‘Must Be Stopped,’ Eyes Federal Block.” CNBC, 11 Aug. 2026, cnbc.com.
[4] Price, Stepheny, and Maria Paronich. “Mamdani’s Luxury-Home Tax Rollout Derailed for Now as Judge Delivers Win to NYC Homeowners over Massive List.” Fox News, 10 Aug. 2026, foxnews.com.
[5] Koretski, Katherine. “New York City Homeowners File Lawsuit Challenging Rollout of Mamdani’s Pied-Γ -Terre Tax.” CNN, 7 Aug. 2026, updated 10 Aug. 2026, cnn.com.
[6] Senzamici, Peter, et al. “Mamdani Forced to Pause Pied-Γ -Terre Tax Roll-Out and Pull Down ‘Shame the Rich’ List in Win for NYC Homeowners.” New York Post, 10 Aug. 2026, nypost.com.
[7] McCarthy, Craig, and Chris Nesi. “Mamdani Publishes Names and Addresses of All NYC Property Owners Who Could Be Hit with New Pied-Γ -Terre Tax.” New York Post, 27 July 2026, nypost.com.