Andrew Cuomo’s latest jab at Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani is a proposed law that’s as bold as it is pointed. The former governor, now running for New York City mayor, wants to bar wealthy residents from rent-controlled apartments, zeroing in on Mamdani’s Astoria digs. It’s a political chess move dressed up as housing reform.
The Daily Caller reported that Cuomo, fresh off a loss to Mamdani in the June Democratic primary, unveiled “Zohran’s Law” to stop affluent New Yorkers from occupying rent-controlled units.
He’s been hammering Mamdani since August 8, 2025, claiming the assemblyman’s $2,300-a-month one-bedroom apartment in pricey Astoria should go to needier families. The proposal’s timing reeks of campaign vengeance, but it raises a fair question about fairness in housing.
Mamdani, pulling in a $142,000 state salary, lives in a rent-controlled unit that’s a steal for Astoria’s market. His campaign insists he rented it through StreetEasy while earning just $47,000 a year. That’s a classic New York hustle, but it’s hard to see how a six-figure earner still qualifies as “needy” for subsidized housing.
Cuomo’s criticism kicked off on X, where his post about Mamdani’s apartment racked up over 28 million views.
“Somewhere last night in New York City, a single mother and her children slept at a homeless shelter because you, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, are occupying her rent-controlled apartment,” he wrote. It’s a gut-punch line, but it leans hard on emotional optics over policy nuance.
Cuomo doubled down, demanding Mamdani “move out immediately” to free the apartment for an unhoused family. “Leaders must show moral clarity,” he posted. The moral grandstanding feels rich coming from a career politician, but it’s a clever way to paint Mamdani as out of touch.
“I’m calling the legislation ‘Zohran’s Law,’” Cuomo told The New York Post on August 10, 2025. “This is an abuse of the system.”
The name’s a cheeky jab, but it risks trivializing a serious issue—housing scarcity—for political points.
Cuomo’s not wrong to spotlight rent control’s flaws, but naming a law after his rival screams petty. Rent-controlled apartments are meant for struggling New Yorkers, not well-paid elected officials. Still, Mamdani’s not breaking any rules, just exploiting a system that’s been gamed for decades.
Mamdani’s defense—that he rented the apartment when he was earning far less—holds water, but only to a point. A $142,000 salary puts him in a different league now. Staying put while preaching progressive values feels like a contradiction that Cuomo’s happily exploiting.
The assemblyman’s Astoria apartment, at $2,300 a month, is a bargain in a neighborhood where rents often double that. But is it keeping a homeless family on the streets, as Cuomo claims? That’s a stretch, though it’s a vivid image that sticks.
Cuomo’s running for mayor in November 2025 under his “Fight and Deliver” party, facing incumbent Eric Adams, now an independent, and Republican Curtis Sliwa.
Adams’ exit from the primary came amid federal corruption charges, later dropped, which muddied the race’s optics. Cuomo’s law feels like a calculated play to dominate headlines and rally his base.
“We’re not supposed to be providing rent-stabilized apartments to the children of millionaires,” Cuomo told The Post. The dig at Mamdani’s background is sharp, but it sidesteps the broader issue: New York’s housing system is a mess. Focusing on one assemblyman’s apartment won’t fix it.
Mamdani has not commented directly, leaving his campaign’s StreetEasy story to do the talking. It’s a weak counter when public sentiment, amplified by Cuomo’s X post, leans toward outrage. Progressive ideals don’t mesh well with clinging to a rent-controlled deal.
Cuomo’s “Zohran’s Law” might spark a needed debate about rent control’s inequities, but its edge undercuts its credibility. Targeting Mamdani specifically feels less like reform and more like a grudge match. New Yorkers deserve a real fix, not campaign theater.
The mayoral race is shaping up as a three-way brawl, with housing a top voter concern. Cuomo’s law, if serious, could force a reckoning on who deserves affordable units. If it’s just a stunt, it’s a flashy distraction from his primary loss.
