Long before dawn, whispers began circulating among City Hall staff.
During a routine briefing, a researcher handed over a slim folder of archival documents, and the room fell into a quiet, uneasy pause — the kind that usually signals a major revelation. But this time, the surprise wasn’t about policy missteps or scandal. It was something much older: a centuries-old oversight that could alter the official numbering of New York’s mayors.
A Historic Election Meets an Unexpected Counting Twist
Zohran Mamdani’s victory as New York City’s next mayor has captured national attention. At thirty-four, he represents a new political generation and a milestone in the city’s evolving identity: he is the first Muslim mayor, the first of South Asian descent, and the first born on the African continent. For longtime New Yorkers, his election embodies the city’s ongoing transformation toward inclusivity and representation.
Yet as the city gears up for his January 2026 inauguration, an unexpected question has emerged: is Mamdani truly the 111th mayor, or does a centuries-old miscount technically make him the 112th?
A Small Error With Big Symbolism
The mystery stretches back over 300 years. Historian Paul Hortenstine, while combing through seventeenth-century records, discovered something intriguing. Matthias Nicolls, long listed as New York’s sixth mayor, actually served two non-consecutive terms: one in 1672 and another in 1675. Modern counting conventions—like those used for U.S. presidents—treat non-consecutive terms as separate entries. By that standard, Nicolls’ second term should have been counted, meaning every mayor since then has been shifted by one.
Hortenstine shared his findings with Mamdani’s team, noting that the original error likely stemmed from the inconsistent record-keeping of the colonial era.
Historical Questions Left Unanswered
This isn’t the first time the discrepancy has surfaced. In 1989, historian Peter R. Christoph highlighted the misalignment in mayoral numbering, noting a gap that had never been formally corrected. His research was acknowledged but largely remained in academic circles, as historical corrections tend to move slowly unless they impact legal or administrative processes. With Mamdani’s high-profile election, however, the issue has regained attention — now with real public curiosity behind it.
For many older New Yorkers, familiar with debates over monuments, archival records, and city renamings, the situation illustrates how history is never truly settled.
What This Means for Mayor-Elect Mamdani
Importantly, the numbering discrepancy does not affect Mamdani’s authority or the functioning of City Hall. The question is entirely ceremonial — a matter of historical accuracy rather than governance. Yet for a mayor whose election already shatters multiple barriers, the possibility of officially being the 112th mayor adds another layer of distinction to his legacy.
The discovery has sparked fascination across the city, showing how even obscure details from centuries past can echo into the present.
Why Historical Accuracy Matters
New York’s identity is inseparable from its history. From colonial settlements to skyscrapers, from post-war rebuilding to modern revitalization, the city’s story is layered and intricate. Accurate records — even of seemingly small matters like mayoral numbering — help preserve the narrative of leadership across generations. Correcting the count won’t rewrite history, but it ensures that the record reflects reality.
Will the Official Count Change?
No decision has been made yet. Any adjustment would be symbolic, affecting plaques, ceremonial references, digital records, and future publications. Yet New York has revised historical designations before, whenever research shed new light on the past.
For now, the archival twist adds an intriguing footnote to Mamdani’s inauguration. Whether he is listed as the 111th or 112th mayor, his groundbreaking election and the significance of his office remain unchanged.
A New Chapter Begins
As January approaches, Mamdani prepares to lead a city celebrated for its resilience and diversity. The archival revelation adds a reflective note, reminding New Yorkers that even centuries-old oversights can resurface at moments of profound change.
Conclusion
In the end, the numbering debate does not diminish Mamdani’s mandate — but it does underscore how alive New York’s history remains. A centuries-old oversight emerging as a groundbreaking mayor steps into office is a perfect illustration of the city’s layered past meeting its dynamic present. As Mamdani takes the helm, he does so with history behind him — and perhaps one extra number in the record books.