Mamdani to be NYC mayor; counting glitch could place him at 112th in long-running ledger

Zohran Mamdani will assume New York City’s mayoral duties on Jan. 1, ushering in a historic chapter as the first Muslim and the first person of South Asian heritage to hold the office. But his ascent also comes with a quirk of history: due to an aging and inconsistent ledger of city leaders, he could be recorded as the 112th mayor rather than the 111th, a correction that would push a long line of officeholders one notch higher in a numbering scheme that dates to the city’s earliest British and Dutch governors.

The discrepancy centers on Matthias Nicolls, a colonial-era figure whose two stints as mayor are not consistently counted. Nicolls is listed as the sixth mayor, from 1671 to 1672, in standard lists, but the record shows a second term that began in 1674 after a Dutch invasion briefly displaced the English-backed government. The English governor later reappointed Nicolls, leaving historians to ask whether his second term should be treated as a continuation of his first term or as a separate, nonconsecutive tenure. Independent historian Paul Hortenstine says applying the latter approach would shift the numbering for scores of later leaders, potentially making Mamdani the 112th mayor on the books on Jan. 1, 2026. He noted the issue is not merely arcane—it's a revealing glimpse into how urban history is compiled and remembered.

[IMAGE]

Hortenstine, who tracks New York’s mayors while also conducting research for Michael Bloomberg’s 2009 reelection campaign, cautions that counting mayors is more complicated than it appears. The list has gaps, and the city’s archives note that early records are imperfect. Nicolls’ second term was omitted from the mid-19th-century printing of mayoral lists that later became the standard reference for the city’s leadership. The inconsistency has fed debates among historians about the proper cut line for numbering and which leaders count as “mayors” versus other Dutch-era officials who sometimes served in pairs as burgomasters.

City archivists and records researchers have wrestled with the question for years. In a December blog post, Michael Lorenzini of the Department of Records and Information Services traced the maze of partial lists, missing minutes and evolving definitions that complicate any clean tally. Lorenzini wrote that, as of a close reading of the sources, it “does appear that on January 1, 2026, Mayor Mamdani should be mayor number 112,” though he added that the “numbering of New York City ‘mayors’ has been somewhat arbitrary and inconsistent.” He noted that the city’s lists don’t count burgomasters who served alongside governors, nor do they fully account for acting mayors who stepped in during transitions.

The broader question goes beyond a single clerical adjustment. Early New York was not a metropolis of five boroughs; it was a city of evolving jurisdictions, with the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island joining later and governance shifting across Dutch and English frameworks. Some versions of the historical record even exclude Native American leaders who inhabited the area long before European arrival. In other words, the topic touches both careful archival work and the evolving understanding of what constitutes the office’s lineage. Lorenzini emphasized that history remains “alive” because new documents surface and historians reexamine old ones with fresh questions.

The discussion has a quieter significance for a city increasingly mindful of its past. If Mamdani’s official number shifts to 112, it would mark a rare instance in which a modern mayor’s place in the historical sequence is altered by archival recalibration rather than by political events in the present. Yet the practical implications for governance are limited: the change is symbolic, not constitutional, and it does not affect Mamdani’s authority, policies or the city’s operations. Still, the episode underscores how historical narratives are constructed—and how a single archival oversight can ripple through centuries of record-keeping.

As Mamdani takes the oath, historians and city officials say the episode should be viewed as a case study in public history. It highlights the importance of transparent, accessible archival work and the ongoing responsibility to correct the historical record when evidence warrants it. The city’s ultimate decision on how to present the numbering in future official materials is still to be determined, but the broader takeaway is clear: history is not a fixed archive but a living dialogue between past records and present interpretations. For a city that prides itself on its complex heritage, the Mamdani naming question offers a reminder that the numbers—like the stories they accompany—are always subject to refinement.

In the end, the matter sits at the intersection of governance, memory and archival science. Mamdani’s tenure will begin with the usual duties of the office, but the question of his place in the mayoral line will linger as a fascinating footnote of a city’s long, crowded calendar of leadership. The episode invites readers to consider how histories are built, how they shift with new discoveries, and what a city’s willingness to revisit its own numbers says about its relationship to the past.