Judge Wayne Ozzi Appears on $1.109 Million Tax Roll He Blocked in TRO Fight

Q: Did a New York judge halt a controversial new property tax rollout just to protect his own real estate interests?

No. There is no clear evidence Justice Wayne M. Ozzi halted the rollout to protect his own financial interests. The key fact is that Ozzi and his wife do appear on the Department of Finance’s supplemental property roll that is central to the lawsuit. But their Staten Island home is valued by the city at about $1.109 million, well below the $5 million threshold that would make a one-, two- or three-family home potentially subject to the new pied-à-terre surcharge. That means his house does not appear to face the tax itself. Just as important, the case before Ozzi does not challenge the legality of the tax law. It challenges how the city implemented it — specifically the public posting of a broad supplemental roll and the mailing of roughly 17,000 notices to owners the city said might be affected. Ozzi’s temporary restraining order targeted those rollout steps, not the surcharge as such. Legal experts cited by amNewYork said Ozzi’s inclusion on the roll alone did not clearly require recusal. They said disclosure might have been appropriate if he personally received one of the mailed notices, but there is no reported evidence that he did. His order and the court filings reviewed did not mention his own property. So the appearance issue is real and may raise questions about disclosure, but the available facts do not support the claim that he acted to shield his own real estate from the tax.

3 articles · Updated · amNY · Aug 12

City records show Supreme Court Justice Wayne Ozzi and his wife own a Staten Island home valued at $1.109 million that appears on the same FY2027 supplemental property roll he temporarily blocked.
The Annadale property falls below the surcharge’s $5 million threshold for one- to three-family homes, and amNewYork found no evidence Ozzi received one of roughly 17,000 notices sent to owners potentially subject to the tax.
Ozzi’s written order did not mention his inclusion on the roll; ethics experts said recusal likely was not required, though one said disclosure to the parties may have been warranted.
The lawsuit challenges the city’s rollout—not the underlying state law—arguing publication of the broad roll and mailed notices was improper, while the city says the roll was required and the data was already public.
The dispute remains active after the city said its appeal automatically stayed Ozzi’s TRO and City Hall said the rollout would continue, even as plaintiffs warned continued implementation could invite contempt.