Second-Home Tax Opposed by Blakeman Heads Back to Court

The Mamdani Administration Tuesday addressed concerns about the disjointed rollout of its second-home tax, announcing the reduction of over four thousand property owners from the list it produced of those who would be required; and the extension of the deadline to prove homeowners’ New York City residency. The statement, the most detailed defense of the complex implementation of the tax, came in a court filing as part of the lawsuit in Staten Island over the city’s mismanagement.
Seventeen thousand property owners received notice from the Finance Department last month tha they would be subject to the levy on expensive “pieds-à-terre” unless they could prove it was their primary residence. The tax would apply to condos and coöps with a “market value” of at least one million dollars, and one-,two-, and three-family second homes with a “market value” of more than five million dollars, all values as calculated by the city’s Finance Department. A campaign promise of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, it is part of his focus on increasing taxes on the wealthy.
The lawsuit does not challenge the legality of the tax, only that the abrupt notices sent to seventeen thousand people without any warning or any determination on the city’s part that the recipient was only a part-time resident of the city sowed chaos, as did the release of a list of nearly one million properties that “may be subject to the charge” with said property owners’ names. Judge Wayne M. Ozzie of the State Supreme Court paused the rollout on August 10th, but the city’s appeal paused the order until the appellate court ruled.
The president, a former New Yorker who still owns property in the city, weighed in on social media August 11th, teasing that he would see in the federal government had any right to intervene.
Bruce Blakeman, Nassau County Executive and Republican candidate for governor, also commented at the time.
"The court order pausing the Hochul-Mamdani tax hike is a victory, but a temporary pause isn’t enough. Hochul and Mamdani’s rush to slap New Yorkers with another massive tax has already resulted in a chaotic rollout that will ultimately hurt the middle class, kill local jobs and drive our tax base out of New York. As Governor, I will repeal this unfair tax once and for all and make New York more affordable,” he said in a statement.
The city offered some explanations on Tuesday, acknowledging the complaints over messagaing.
According to the city, the 2025 tax data received from the state established residency of 1,200 of the 17,000 who received notices, and that the city Finance Department approved the proofs submitted by another 2,900. 2,600 more proofs are still under review, the city said, and new notices would be sent based on the 2025 tax data to 10,800 property owners informing them of their lack of proof of residency. The city also said the deadline to file this proof would be pushed off to October 6th from September 18th.
“What petitioners characterize as improper burden shifting is actually an intentional design of the law,” the city wrote, in defense of sending notices that plaintiffs allege inconvenienced the recipients. “Petitioners may dislike or feel burdened by” the back-and-forth process — in which the city identifies properties as possible second homes, the owners submit proof of residency and the city accepts or rejects it — “but that does not make it illegal.”
Randy Mastro, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the New York Times that the city’s filing was “an admission that this was a massive screw-up.” He said the city had to “do a do-over” and “tell thousands of New York City homeowners who should never have received threatening notices in the first place that the city now recognizes that they live in their own homes.” The city should have used the 2025 data in the first place, not the 2024 one (which, the city said, was all they had available at the time). Further, given that the final deadline to file 2025 taxes is October 15th, the deadline to prove residency should be no earlier than the 16th.
“The lawsuit continues because there are thousands more who are still in limbo,” Mr. Mastro said.
The city argued for a dismissal, saying the plaintiffs had not shown how the rollout had meaningfully harmed them, and that proving a property is a primary residence is straightforward, whether it’s owned by an individual or a corporate entity.
It is impossible to know how many property owners will eventually be taxed, or if the exemptions would affect the $500 million it is projected to raise.