Zohran Mamdani May Not Be New York City’s 111th Mayor After All
When Zohran Mamdani raises his right hand and takes the oath of office on New Year’s Day, the moment will mark a milestone in modern New York City politics. But according to city historians, it may also quietly rewrite the city’s past. Mamdani, long described as New York’s 111th mayor, will not hold that numerical title after all. Instead, he is expected to become the city’s 112th mayor—or possibly something closer to the 133rd—depending on how history ultimately settles the count.
The revelation comes from the New York City Department of Records and Information Services (DORIS), which recently acknowledged that the official numbering of the city’s mayors is far less precise than generations of New Yorkers have been led to believe. The catalyst for the reassessment was a discovery by historian Paul Hortenstine, who uncovered evidence of a previously unrecorded mayoral term dating back to 1674.
That year, during a brief but turbulent moment in colonial history, Matthias Nicolls appears to have served as mayor of New York—then a city transitioning between Dutch and English control. His tenure, though short and poorly documented, complicates what many assumed was a settled historical record.
As a result, Mamdani’s place in the mayoral lineage is no longer straightforward.
“The numbering of New York City ‘Mayors’ has been somewhat arbitrary and inconsistent,” a department official wrote in a blog post published earlier this month. “There may even be other missing Mayors.”
The statement is both modest and extraordinary. It suggests that one of the country’s most studied cities may not know, with certainty, how many people have held its highest office.
For Mamdani, the revelation does not change the authority of the office he is about to assume. But symbolically, it adds an unexpected historical layer to a political rise that already carries significant meaning.
A former state assembly member known for his democratic socialist politics, Mamdani’s election represents a generational shift in New York leadership. He campaigned on housing justice, public safety reform, and economic equity, positioning himself as a challenger to entrenched power structures. Now, as it turns out, he is also stepping into an office whose own history is more unsettled than previously understood.
The confusion stems from the city’s colonial period, when governance structures were fluid and recordkeeping inconsistent. Before New York became a consolidated city in 1898, it existed under Dutch, English, and early American rule, each with different definitions of executive authority. Some leaders were appointed, others elected, and some held overlapping or temporary powers that later historians struggled to classify.
Matthias Nicolls, the newly rediscovered figure, served during the brief reassertion of Dutch control over New York in 1673–1674, when the city was briefly renamed New Orange. While Nicolls’ role was known to scholars of colonial law, his apparent function as mayor was never fully incorporated into the city’s official mayoral list.
Hortenstine’s research suggests that Nicolls exercised mayoral authority consistent with the role as understood at the time. If that interpretation is accepted, the entire numbering system shifts.
And Nicolls may not be the only omission.
DORIS officials have acknowledged that other early officeholders may have been excluded due to incomplete records or evolving definitions of what constituted a “mayor.” Some individuals who governed the city under different titles—such as military governors or colonial administrators—may have performed equivalent functions without being formally recognized as mayors in later historical accounts.
This uncertainty has led the department to adopt cautious language. While Mamdani will definitively not be the 111th mayor, officials are reluctant to assign a new number until further research is completed.
That ambiguity underscores a broader truth about history: it is not static. Even institutions as established as New York City’s government are shaped by interpretation, rediscovery, and revision.
For Mamdani, the moment is rich with symbolism. He will be sworn in using a Quran, reflecting both his personal faith and the city’s religious diversity—a first for a New York mayor. Now, he will also enter office amid a reassessment of the very lineage he is joining.
Some supporters have embraced the irony. A mayor elected on a platform of challenging long-held assumptions, they note, is now doing so simply by taking office.
Historians see the episode as a reminder that civic identity is built not only on policy and leadership, but on storytelling. Who gets counted, how they are remembered, and whose authority is recognized are questions that shape a city’s understanding of itself.
“This isn’t just a technical correction,” one academic historian noted. “It’s about how power was defined, who was considered legitimate, and whose governance was recorded for posterity.”
As New York moves forward under new leadership, it is also looking backward with fresh eyes. The discovery does not diminish the significance of Mamdani’s inauguration. If anything, it situates it within a longer, messier, and more human history than previously acknowledged.
On New Year’s Day, the ceremony at City Hall will proceed as planned. The oath will be administered. The crowd will cheer. A new chapter will begin.
Exactly which number Zohran Mamdani occupies in the mayoral sequence may remain unsettled. But his place in the city’s evolving story—like the story itself—is already undeniable.
Leave a Reply