A New York judge blocked Mayor Zohran Mamdani's luxury-home surcharge and ordered City Hall to pull down a massive online list that exposed the names, addresses, and property values of more than 900,000 homeowners, a rollout the plaintiffs' attorney called "botched" from start to finish.
Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Wayne Ozzi issued the temporary restraining order Monday after three homeowners sued the Mamdani administration, arguing the city never made the individualized determinations state tax law requires before mailing notices and publishing the sprawling property roll. Ozzi found the homeowners were likely to succeed on the merits, that the notices caused irreparable harm, and that the city, not property owners, bore the legal burden of making the initial eligibility determination before sending a single letter.
The order bars City Hall from imposing, assessing, or collecting the pied-à-terre surcharge against any homeowner on the supplemental roll, and it prohibits the city from sending new notices until it first completes the case-by-case review the law demands. It also freezes the looming deadlines the administration had set for homeowners to respond, deadlines that had already triggered widespread confusion among residents who live full-time in the very homes the city flagged.
The surcharge targets second homes valued at more than $5 million for one-to-three-family houses and more than $1 million for condos and co-ops, Breitbart reported. Mayor Mamdani himself said roughly 17,000 homeowners in a city of 8.5 million are potentially affected. But instead of identifying those 17,000 through the required individualized review, the administration published a supplemental property roll covering more than 900,000 homeowners and mailed notices to thousands of residents whose primary homes were swept up in the dragnet.
Attorney Randy Mastro, representing the three plaintiffs, told the court the city had exposed "over 900,000 New Yorkers by name, address and property value", then shifted the burden onto homeowners to prove they should not be taxed. One plaintiff, Simon Hedley, eventually received an exemption after providing his tax information. Mastro argued that outcome proved the city could have made the required determination itself before mailing anything.
Outside the courthouse, Mastro called it "a very good day for all New York City homeowners" and said the administration had sent letters to thousands of people who live in their own homes and "never should have received a letter suggesting they may be subject to the surcharge."
"The Mamdani administration botched this rollout."
Inside the courtroom, Mastro was blunter. He described the situation as "extraordinary," the notices as "bizarre," and the publication of the property roll as "ludicrous." He pressed the city's legal team directly: "Was it negligence, was it laziness?" He told the judge "thousands of New Yorkers are on edge" and urged removal of the "threat of jeopardy."
Steven Banks, representing the city, pushed back hard. He argued that freezing the process would hurt taxpayers who were seeking exemptions and would disrupt the administration's timeline. He insisted the published supplemental roll preserved the status quo rather than disrupted it.
When Mastro described the notices as "terrorizing" homeowners, Banks objected. He called the language offensive, referencing the fact that Mamdani is New York City's first Muslim mayor.
"That's not terrorism. It happens to be acting in accordance with law."
Banks also warned the court that granting the restraining order would itself be the disruptive act: "A TRO radically upsets the status quo."
Judge Ozzi was unconvinced. He found the city had not done its due diligence. He acknowledged he could not "unring the bell" on notices already mailed, but he could prevent additional mistakes, and he did, signing the order that halted the entire rollout.
Before the ruling came down, Mamdani took a swipe at the plaintiffs' lawyer rather than address the substance of the complaint.
"There are few things more certain in New York City than death, taxes and Randy Mastro filing a lawsuit against this administration."
Asked whether he regretted the rollout, the mayor defended his administration's handling while conceding that "with any new tax, there are more questions than there are answers." He said revenue from the surcharge would fund city services including safer streets and stronger schools.
After the ruling, mayoral spokesman Matt Rauschenbach issued a statement vowing to fight: "We disagree with today's ruling, but we are confident in both the pied-à-terre surcharge and the City's ability to implement it fairly and effectively." He added that the surcharge "asks those who own second homes valued at $5 million or more to contribute their fair share to the city they benefit from." Rauschenbach said the city's Law Department would appeal the ruling immediately and claimed the appeal would stay the judge's order.
Whether that legal claim holds remains to be seen. Judge Ozzi set a tight procedural calendar: the city must submit its order to show cause by Aug. 24, plaintiffs' replies are due Aug. 27, and oral arguments on the merits are scheduled for Aug. 31. The New York Post reported that Governor Hochul distanced herself from the botched rollout, though no details of her specific comments appeared in the court record.
After the hearing, Mastro framed the ruling as a rebuke of the entire process.
"We are very gratified by the judge's decision, which has vindicated the rights of hundreds of thousands of New York City homeowners who were subjected to a process they never should have been a part of in the first place."
He called the publication of 900,000 homeowners' personal data "a pretty shocking thing that happened." In court, he had put the point even more plainly: "The city screwed this up... got it wrong... stop the train and make them do it over."
Judge Ozzi stressed that the underlying case has not been decided on its merits. The restraining order is temporary. The city still intends to implement the surcharge. And the administration had already extended one exemption deadline before the lawsuit was filed, an implicit acknowledgment that the original timeline was unworkable.
But for now, the supplemental roll must come down. The notices carry no legal force. And the deadlines that had thousands of New Yorkers scrambling to prove they live in their own homes are frozen.
When a city government publishes the personal financial information of 900,000 residents to collect a tax that applies to 17,000, the problem is not a few administrative wrinkles, it is an administration that treated every homeowner as guilty until proven exempt, and a court that told them to stop.
