On November 4 the Appellate Division dismissed the rollout case. It did not decide whether the surcharge is lawful.
On November 4, 2026, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the September 29 Richmond County judgment in O'Brien v. City of New York, denied the amended petition, and dismissed the case for lack of standing, which means the right to bring the case. The court did not decide whether New York City's pied-a-terre surcharge is lawful. It did not uphold the tax on the merits, and it did not strike it down.
I price this surcharge on second-home purchases across the five boroughs, and this decision does not change a rate. The owner of a covered non-primary residence pays it as an annual charge on the city property tax bill. The city receives it. What changed on November 4 is the rollout lawsuit, not the statute. The September 29 order that had gone against the city's process is no longer the ruling. Separate constitutional challenges to the tax itself are still pending. The full tracker is on the legal challenges page, and the rates and the free lookup are on the pied-a-terre tax hub.
Courthouse News named the panel as Justices Phillip Hom, Deborah Dowling, Francesca Connolly, and Mark Dillon. AMNY quoted the order as reversing the September judgment, denying the amended petition, and dismissing the proceeding. Bloomberg Law's report confirms the dismissal was for lack of standing. Courthouse News reported that this suit targeted rollout elements, not the lawfulness of the surcharge itself.
| Question | November 4 answer |
|---|---|
| What happened to the September 29 judgment? | Reversed. The amended petition was denied and the case was dismissed. |
| Why? | Lack of standing. The challengers did not show a concrete injury. |
| Did the court decide the tax? | No. Gothamist reported that the decision does not resolve whether the city followed every procedure, and does not resolve separate challenges to the tax. |
| Are other cases over? | No. Separate constitutional challenges remain pending. |
Standing is the right to bring the case. Courthouse News quoted the panel: "The mere receipt of the initial determination notices ... does not qualify as an injury, in and of itself, as the notice instead serves an informational purpose." The panel compared those notices to debt-collection letters that, standing alone, are not an injury.
Receiving the initial determination notice was not enough, because the notice serves an informational purpose. Appearing on the public supplemental roll was not enough without allegations of misuse, crime, harassment, or defined public ridicule. Ordinary compliance costs were not enough: the panel said all taxpayers incur time, effort, and costs determining tax obligations.
Gothamist reported that the court did not decide whether the city followed every procedure correctly. The decision does not uphold the surcharge and does not strike it. While the appeal was open, the city had said a stay (a pause on the September 29 order) let it keep implementing the surcharge. That appeal is no longer open. Courthouse News and Gothamist both reported that other lawsuits challenging the tax remain. Courthouse News described those other suits as accusing the tax of being discriminatory. Randy Mastro, the homeowners' lawyer, told Courthouse News that the surcharge's constitutionality will be decided next month. That is his statement, not a date the court has posted. One of the September suits, as Inman reported at the time, is paid for by the Real Estate Board of New York. REBNY was not a plaintiff in O'Brien.
Manhattan and Brooklyn condos in the price range the surcharge reaches
43 W 64th Street #4B
Upper West Side
29 King Street #3H
Hudson Square
Listing information provided courtesy of the Real Estate Board of New York's Residential Listing Service (RLS). Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. Sale listings verified. ©2026 REBNY. RLS data displayed by Keller Williams NYC.
On September 29, 2026, Justice Wayne Ozzi of Richmond County Supreme Court held that the city's rollout violated the homeowners' due process rights. Inman and The Hill reported that he ordered the mailed notices cancelled, the public roll replaced with a list of properties actually subject to the surcharge, and new notices only after an individualized determination. The city appealed that night. That judgment is the history the Appellate Division reversed. My October 1 report and the notice-holder note were written while the appeal was still open. The update blocks on those pages say so.
The Department of Finance page, checked November 5, 2026, says the exemption deadline for tax year 2026-27 was October 13, 2026 for homes, condos and co-op units. It gives no later date, and the November 4 decision did not create one. An owner who disagrees with the DOF valuation can appeal to the NYC Tax Commission. Read the Department of Finance page and the notice page for the details. If you already filed, keep the confirmation.
The lookup shows the Department of Finance market value and the Phase 1 band. It does not tell you whether you owe the surcharge. That still turns on whether anyone qualifying lives there as a primary residence.
Check Your AddressSend me the address and I can read the Department of Finance value on the bill with you, then set that annual number next to a lease or a sale. The sell or lease comparison puts those paths side by side. A filed exemption, if you already sent one, is a document to keep. It is not a court outcome. For the case citations, use the legal challenges page. For the building roll, use the hub.
This is general information, not legal or tax advice. Confirm your own filing with a New York real estate attorney or your CPA. Court reporting cited below is from November 4, 2026. The Department of Finance page was checked on November 5, 2026.
Manhattan and Brooklyn condos in the price range the surcharge reaches
111 Fulton Street #806
Financial District
301 W 57TH Street #30C
Hell's Kitchen
Listing information provided courtesy of the Real Estate Board of New York's Residential Listing Service (RLS). Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. Sale listings verified. ©2026 REBNY. RLS data displayed by Keller Williams NYC.
Before you bid
Send the address you are looking at. The report covers what the listing leaves out: the recorded sale history, the tax and abatement picture, open building violations and permits, and the closed sales that set the price. Milton prepares it from public records. No obligation.
New listings, market data, and expert analysis. No spam.
We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.
Licensed Real Estate Associate Broker
Keller Williams NYC · Lic. #10301213304
Milton's listings and commentary have appeared in The New York Times, the New York Post, and Haven Lifestyles. See the coverage.
Let's talk. I typically respond within a few hours.
Disclaimer: All information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or real estate advice.
Listing data sourced from the REBNY Residential Listing Service (RLS). Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
Milton Coste is a Licensed Real Estate Associate Broker affiliated with Keller Williams NYC,
360 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10017. License No. 10301213304.
Equal Housing Opportunity. This advertisement complies with New York State Department of State regulations
governing real estate advertising. © 2026 Milton Coste. All rights reserved.
Image Disclosure: Header images on this blog are AI-generated editorial illustrations and do not depict specific properties for sale or rent.
Milton Coste
Licensed Real Estate Associate Broker · Keller Williams NYC
License No. 10301213304 · 360 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10017
