Steve Wynn Fighting Mamdani Pied-à-Terre Tax, Says It’s ‘Unconstitutional’

Former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and casino magnate Steve Wynn are suing New York over a new pied-à-terre tax championed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani, arguing the second-home surcharge is unconstitutional.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Ross—the U.S. commerce secretary during the first Trump administration—and Wynn Resorts founder Steve Wynn argue the luxury second-home surcharge violates both the New York State and U.S. constitutions by unfairly targeting nonresidents. The tax, a signature policy initiative championed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani, was passed by state lawmakers in May and took effect July 1.

The revenue measure applies a graduated surcharge to non-primary residential properties in New York City valued at more than $5 million, as well as co-ops and condominiums with estimated valuations exceeding $1 million.

Wynn Motivated to Avoid Surcharge

Both Ross and Wynn list Florida as their primary state of residence while maintaining high-value residential holdings in New York. Ross and his wife, Hilary Geary Ross—also named as a plaintiff—own a home in Southampton, N.Y., along with a Manhattan co-op.

Wynn, who has actively traded high-end residential real estate since stepping down from Wynn Resorts in 2018, faces significant financial exposure under the new tax framework.

He purchased a Ritz-Carlton duplex in Manhattan for $70 million in 2012. After an unsuccessful attempt to sell the residence for $90 million a decade later, the property was re-listed this summer at $70 million. Carrying costs on the penthouse are estimated at $565,000 annually—a figure that excludes the newly enacted pied-à-terre surcharge.

Real estate observers noted that the introduction of the surcharge, paired with contrasting political alignments between the former casino mogul and City Hall, likely accelerated Wynn’s push to offload the asset.

Plaintiffs Claim Nonresidents Face Disparate Treatment

The tax exempts full-time New York City residents regardless of their home’s market value, a structure Ross and Wynn argue violates the Commerce and Privileges and Immunities clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs contend that non-resident property owners already generate a net fiscal surplus for the city by paying standard real estate taxes while drawing minimally on municipal services and infrastructure.

“State lawmakers have made no secret that singling out nonresidents for disparate treatment was precisely the point of the PAT Tax,” the legal filing asserts.

“Through the enacting legislation and countless public statements, the State has consistently reaffirmed that the purpose of the PAT Tax is to force nonresidents to bear more of New York City’s expenditure for municipal services provided predominantly for the benefit of full-time New York City residents, without adding to the tax burden of those residents,” it adds.