Despite winning last month’s historic election, New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani is now at the center of an unexpected debate: a historian claims he may never officially be recognized as the city’s 111th mayor. The surprising argument doesn’t question Mamdani’s victory, legitimacy, or ability to take office – but instead challenges the long-standing numbering system that tracks the city’s mayors throughout its 400-year history.
Mamdani, 34, made history when he became the first Muslim, the first South Asian, and the first African-born candidate to win the New York City mayoral race. His victory also ushered in the city’s first Millennial mayor and its first Gen Z First Lady – his 28-year-old wife, Rama Duwaji. The pair are set to take over on January 1, 2026, a moment many of their supporters have been eagerly anticipating.
While Donald Trump has taken aim at the incoming mayor, calling him a “100 percent communist lunatic”, Mamdani still maintains strong support among voters who pushed him to victory in November. But now, an unusual historical twist has emerged, questioning the accuracy of his title as the 111th mayor.
Why a 17th-Century Mistake Could Change Mamdani’s Official Number
The speculation began with historian Paul Hortenstine, who discovered what he says is a centuries-old clerical mistake while researching early New York political figures and their ties to the slave trade. According to Hortenstine, Matthias Nicolls (who is officially listed as the city’s sixth mayor) actually served two non-consecutive terms. Nicolls governed in 1672 and then again in 1675, a fact that appears in colonial archives but not in the city’s formal records, according to GB News.
Like U.S. presidents, mayors who serve non-consecutive terms are generally counted twice. Since Nicolls’ second term was omitted from the numbering system, Hortenstine argues that every subsequent mayor (including Mamdani) has been off by one. If the city acknowledges this oversight, Mamdani would be reclassified as New York City’s 112th mayor instead.
Historians Say the Error Has Been Repeated for Centuries
Hortenstine’s claim has been supported by other historians and historical organizations, and it isn’t the first time the issue has been raised. In 1989, historian Peter R. Christoph made the same argument, writing that even former Mayor Ed Koch had incorrectly been labeled the 105th instead of the 106th.
Christoph described the misnumbering as “mind-boggling,” noting that nearly every mayor after the city’s first six had been assigned an inaccurate number, unknowingly carrying the error forward with each new administration.
Uncertain Whether NYC Will Correct the Record
Hortenstine has already contacted the mayor’s office, urging officials to formally update the historical list. Whether the city will acknowledge the centuries-old oversight, or what impact this would have on Mamdani’s official title, remains unknown.
For now, Mamdani is still slated to be sworn in on January 1. But if historians get their way, his first act as mayor may be inheriting a new designation: not No. 111, but No. 112.