Self-described Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani is poised to make history on January 1, 2026, as the first Muslim mayor of New York City and one of the youngest mayors the city has seen in over a century. At 34, Mamdani’s election represents a major milestone in the city’s political and demographic evolution. He rose from serving as a State Assembly member to capturing the mayoralty largely through grassroots work in Queens and his appeal to younger voters. Mamdani won the election with 50.78% of the vote, defeating Republican Curtis Sliwa and independent Andrew Cuomo in a race that drew national attention, partly due to commentary from figures like former President Donald Trump. The contest marked the most crowded mayoral race since 1993, underscoring the heightened interest in the city’s political future.

However, despite Mamdani’s historic victory and the significance of his tenure, a historian has suggested that his official numerical designation as mayor may be incorrect. Paul Hortenstine, a historian who has researched early New York City mayors and their ties to the colonial era, claims that an error in the official record has miscounted the sequence of mayors. According to Hortenstine, the city has failed to include a nonconsecutive second term of Matthias Nicolls in 1675, a detail that has been overlooked for centuries. Hortenstine expressed hope that the city would take the historical accuracy of mayoral records seriously, noting that such errors have a lasting impact on how the city’s history is represented.

The omission, Hortenstine explained, originates from a city guide published in 1841 that failed to list Nicolls’ second, nonconsecutive term. Since that guide, subsequent official records have perpetuated the mistake, effectively shifting the numbering of all mayors who followed. Just as nonconsecutive presidential terms are counted separately in the United States, missing a mayoral term creates a domino effect in the numbering sequence. If the finding is formally accepted, Mamdani would be officially recognized as the 112th mayor rather than the 111th. Hortenstine collaborated with historian Peter R. Christoph in identifying the discrepancy, and their research provides detailed documentation of how Nicolls’ second term was historically overlooked.

City officials are aware of Hortenstine’s research, though they expressed cautious consideration of its implications. Ken Cobb from the Department of Records acknowledged that the finding was surprising but worth exploring further. Cobb emphasized that the department is responsible for preserving records rather than creating them, highlighting that such historical oversights can persist until a careful review uncovers them. Previous corrections to the city’s list of mayors demonstrate that revisions are possible; for example, in 1937, Charles Lodwick’s term from 1694 to 1695 was retroactively assigned as the 21st mayor, causing a subsequent shift in the numbering of later mayors. Cobb suggested that if Nicolls’ second term is officially recognized, future historical materials and ceremonial documents, including those for inaugurations, would need to be updated accordingly.

The misnumbering issue is not entirely new. In 1989, Peter R. Christoph published an essay in the Record of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society pointing out that Edward I. Koch, long recognized as the 105th mayor, was actually the 106th. Christoph noted that the city’s official directories and even mainstream media, such as The New York Times, had perpetuated this numerical error for decades. He observed that nearly 99 mayors had been misnumbered due to early record-keeping oversights. This historical context provides a precedent for understanding the discrepancy affecting Mamdani’s mayoral number and highlights the challenges in maintaining accurate historical documentation for one of the country’s oldest and most complex cities.

While Mamdani’s authority and role as mayor are unaffected by the potential adjustment in numbering, the historical record of his office could change. Randy Mastro, the first deputy mayor under the current administration, indicated that he had not been aware of the missing mayor and suggested that resolving the issue could be left to historians and the incoming administration. Regardless of the outcome, the discussion underscores the importance of meticulous historical research in shaping public understanding of civic leadership. Mamdani himself is set to take office with his record-breaking accomplishments and historic firsts intact, but the official numbering may remain a footnote for historians seeking accuracy in New York City’s long and intricate mayoral lineage.

In the broader context, this revelation illustrates how the preservation of historical records can influence perceptions of political milestones. Mamdani’s election symbolizes generational, religious, and ideological shifts in New York City politics, yet even such landmark achievements are intertwined with centuries-old documentation practices. The ongoing examination of Nicolls’ overlooked term reminds both officials and the public that history is often more nuanced than it appears and that administrative records are crucial for maintaining the integrity of civic memory. As Mamdani prepares to assume office, historians and city officials alike are confronted with the task of reconciling tradition, historical accuracy, and the symbolism of groundbreaking political achievements, demonstrating that the story of leadership in New York City continues to evolve even centuries after its earliest colonial administration.