Inside a Staten Island courthouse, lawyers for the city squared off Monday against opponents of the new tax on luxury second homes.
Homeowners argued the city hurt them by exposing their personal information online but city attorneys all but told them: just because you don’t like the way we did things, doesn’t make it illegal.
No decision came Monday from Richmond County Supreme Court Judge Wayne Ozzi, who heard more than two hours worth of arguments over the legality of how the city rolled out the tax.
Ozzi granted both sides more time to prove their points.
The city maintains it did nothing illegal in rolling out the new tax, while homeowners argued the city placed the burden on them to prove they were primary residents and also exposed some of their personal information.
“This will be a final decision on the merits, on a full record where the parties had a chance to make full submissions,” said Randy Mastro, attorney for the homeowners in the case, after the proceedings. “This administration saturated the landscape with demands about the surcharge whether by negligence, laziness or intentionality to ensnare thousands of New Yorkers into having to pay it.”
NYC Corporation Counsel Steven Banks was more tightlipped.
“I’m going to let what I said on the record to the court speak for itself,” he told NY1.
Although the tax was meant to target wealthy property owners whose homes are valued at $5 million or higher and don’t live in the city full-time, thousands of New Yorkers got letters from Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration asking for more information.
Mastro says the city hurt them by posting hundreds of thousands of names and addresses, despite being unsure if the tax applies to them at all.
Further, they argued, the city shouldn’t have contacted an original group of 17,000 property owners, asking them to pay the tax or prove they’re ineligible.
“The issues here are so important to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who feel aggrieved by their own city administration,” Mastro said.
Property owners can apply for an exemption if they live there, or it’s occupied by a family member or renter. Mastro, however, says the city rushed.
“Seventeen thousand of us, including myself, never should’ve gotten threatening notice letters, that we may be subject to the surcharge,” he said.
“Well they got called out and we’re here in court and they will have to own up to what they did,” he said.
Meanwhile, city lawyers argued the lawsuit is premature, as they’re still in the middle of the rollout and no final decisions have been made. Plus, the plaintiffs in Mastro’s case have been proven exempt from the tax.
Since early August, City Hall revised its initial determinations and they also extended the exemption filing deadline to Oct. 6.
Now, 5,874 exemption applications were started and 3,655 were approved, according to the city as of Aug. 28.
“We are awaiting the judge’s decision following today’s hearing,” City Hall spokesman Matt Rauschenbach said. “We are confident that the surcharge is fully consistent with the law.”