The rollout reaches court

On August 7, 2026 a verified Article 78 petition and complaint was filed in Richmond County Supreme Court under Index No. 85217/2026, captioned Rachel O'Brien et al v. The City of New York et al, and assigned to Justice Wayne Ozzi. Ten documents were filed the same day by Randy M. Mastro for the petitioners. The petitioners reported in the coverage are Rachel O'Brien and Carmine Morano of Staten Island and Simon Hedley of Manhattan.

What is being challenged, and what is not?

• Not the surcharge. The petition does not put the legality of the tax itself before the court, so nothing about whether the surcharge exists or what it costs is at stake in this proceeding.
• The assessment roll the Department of Finance published, and the notices sent to owners: that is what the proceeding attacks, as arbitrary and capricious, on the argument that primary residences were swept onto a public list and the burden of disproof shifted onto full-time residents.
• The relief sought is reported as a declaration that the notices and the roll are unlawful, removal of the published list, a pause on the obligation of noticed owners to respond while the case runs, and an injunction against further enforcement.

Does this change the September 18 deadline?

No. On the day this was written the emergency order to show cause with a temporary restraining order was docketed as proposed, under Motion #001, with no signed order on the docket. A request for a stay is not a stay: until a court grants one, the deadline is September 18, 2026 and every owner holding a notice still has to answer it. An owner who reads a headline as permission to wait can lose the exemption while the case is still being briefed.