Steve Wynn and Wilbur Ross Sue to Block New York's Pied-à-Terre Tax

By jili tutorial · September 30, 2026

Steve Wynn and Wilbur Ross Sue to Block New York’s Pied-à-Terre Tax

Overview

Former casino executive Steve Wynn and Wilbur Ross, who served as U.S. commerce secretary in the first Trump administration, have filed a lawsuit in New York challenging the city’s new pied-à-terre tax. The lawsuit, filed Monday in the Suffolk County branch of the New York Supreme Court, claims the tax violates both the New York State and U.S. constitutions because it deliberately targets nonresidents.

The tax is a centerpiece of Zohran Mamdani’s 2025 mayoral campaign. State lawmakers approved it in May, and it took effect July 1. The lawsuit asks the court to block the tax before it can be enforced.

What Is a Pied-à-Terre Tax?

A pied-à-terre is a home used part-time—typically a second residence for someone who lives elsewhere. New York’s version is aimed at high-end owners who do not make their city home their primary residence.

Under the new law:

Second homes valued at more than $5 million are affected.
Co-ops and condominiums worth more than $1 million are also affected.
Primary residences are exempt, even if they are very expensive.

Supporters say the tax closes a loophole in which wealthy nonresidents own luxury property in the city but do not pay city income taxes. Critics say it punishes property owners who already contribute to the city’s finances.

In legal and legislative documents, the tax is sometimes called the “PAT tax,” short for pied-à-terre tax.

Who Is Behind the Lawsuit?

Wilbur Ross and Hilary Geary Ross

Wilbur Ross is a businessman who served as U.S. commerce secretary in the first Trump administration. He and his wife, Hilary Geary Ross, are both plaintiffs in the case. They live in Florida but own a house in Southampton, New York, and a co-op in Manhattan.

Steve Wynn

Steve Wynn, founder of Wynn Resorts, left the casino industry in 2018. Since then, he has become a residential real estate investor, including buying and selling luxury homes in South Florida. Wynn is also a Florida resident.

Wynn owns property in Manhattan. In 2012, he bought a Ritz-Carlton duplex for $70 million. A decade later, he tried to sell it for $90 million but could not find a buyer. The listing was later pulled, but the duplex was relisted in July at $70 million.

According to reports, Wynn’s annual carrying costs on the duplex are around $565,000—and that figure does not include the new pied-à-terre tax. Some reports have suggested the tax could make Wynn a more motivated seller, especially because his political views are not aligned with Mamdani’s.

The Legal Argument: Substance Over Label

The plaintiffs argue that the tax is unconstitutional because it is, in substance, a real estate tax that singles out nonresidents. The complaint says:

“The Legislature cannot determine the constitutional character of a tax by fiat; the substance of the charge, and not the label attached by the Legislature, determines its nature for constitutional purposes.”

The lawsuit points out that the tax is triggered by ownership of real property, measured by the property’s value, and administered through the real property tax system. In the plaintiffs’ view, calling it something else does not change that reality.

Why does that matter? If the court agrees that the charge is a property tax, it may be subject to constitutional rules that govern property taxation, including the requirement that taxes be applied fairly and not single out one group.

‘Singled Out’ Nonresidents

The tax applies only to non-primary residences. That means a New Yorker who lives full-time in an expensive Manhattan apartment would not pay the tax, but a Florida resident who owns a second home in the city would.

Ross and Wynn say that makes the tax discriminatory. They argue that nonresident owners are already net contributors to New York City: they pay property taxes on expensive homes while using relatively few public services.

The complaint states:

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

It adds that the state’s purpose was to force nonresidents to bear more of the city’s expenses “without adding to the tax burden” of full-time residents.

What Could Happen Next?

The lawsuit is at an early stage. The court could eventually:

Dismiss the case and allow the tax to remain in effect.
Rule in favor of the plaintiffs and strike down the tax.
Narrowly interpret the law to limit its application.

A court might also consider whether to temporarily block enforcement while the case is pending.

For Wynn, the stakes are personal. The tax could add another layer of expense to a property he has already struggled to sell. For the city, the outcome could affect the revenue stream it expects from the tax and set a precedent for other cities considering similar taxes on wealthy nonresidents.

The Bigger Picture

Pied-à-terre taxes have become a popular tool in cities facing housing affordability challenges. But New York’s version is unusual because it explicitly targets out-of-state residents. That raises legal questions about whether one state can impose different tax burdens on nonresidents who own property within its borders.

The case also highlights the growing gap between those who can afford luxury second homes and the cities where those homes sit empty for much of the year.

For now, the tax is in effect, but the legal challenge is just beginning. The outcome could reshape how New York raises revenue from its wealthiest part-time residents.