NYC pied-à-terre tax, explained.

The NYC pied-à-terre tax is an annual surcharge on residential property in New York City that is NOT the owner’s primary residence, owned by an individual (or look-through entity) where the value crosses defined thresholds. It sits ON TOP OF the existing property tax — the standard NYC property tax bill continues to apply; the pied-à-terre surcharge adds to it.

Three things distinguish this from prior pied-à-terre tax proposals (most notably the 2019-era S44B bill that died in Albany):

• It actually passed. Earlier proposals never cleared the State Legislature. The 2026 version moved in the post-mayoral-election political window with co-sponsorship from both the city (Mayor Mamdani) and state (Governor Hochul) executives.
• It uses a simplified two-phase bracket structure rather than the elaborate 8-tier condo schedule earlier proposals contemplated.
• It bakes in a DOF revaluation for condos and co-ops effective tax year 2028-2029, moving from the current low Class 2 income-approach valuations to a sales-based methodology. That is the structural change that matters most at the top of the market: the further a building’s DOF value sits below 20% of its sales-based value, the larger the 2028 increase.

The first tax year is 2026-2027 (begins July 1, 2026); the program sunsets after tax year 2030-2031 unless the State Legislature renews.

The mechanics work differently in the initial phase (tax years 2026-2027 and 2027-2028) versus the post-revaluation phase (tax year 2028-2029 onward), because DOF needs two years to develop and publish the new sales-based condo / co-op valuation methodology.

Initial phase — tax years 2026-2027 and 2027-2028

1-3 family homes (Class 1): Surcharge applies at the standard 0.8% / 1.05% / 1.3% bracket on DOF market value (which approximates sale price for Class 1 properties).

Condos and co-ops (Class 2): Surcharge applies at elevated 4.0% / 5.25% / 6.5% brackets on DOF market value — which under the current income-approach methodology runs well below sale price. The elevated rates are not a penalty; the statute scales this schedule to the lower base by exactly one fifth. Every initial-phase rate is five times the post-revaluation rate (4.0 vs 0.8, 5.25 vs 1.05, 6.5 vs 1.3), and every threshold is one fifth of it ($1M vs $5M, $3M vs $15M, $5M vs $25M). The law is assuming DOF market value equals 20% of sales-based value. Where your building’s actual ratio sits against that 20% is what decides whether your bill rises or falls in 2028.

Post-revaluation — tax year 2028-2029 onward

All property types use the standard 0.8% / 1.05% / 1.3% brackets. For 1-3 family houses nothing changes: those rates and thresholds already applied in the initial phase. For condos and co-ops, two things change at once — the entry threshold moves from $1M of DOF market value to $5M, and the base itself is re-founded. Tax Law §1351(l) directs DOF to determine the new value using a method that considers comparable sales “without regard to the restrictions described in section five hundred eighty-one of the real property tax law or section three hundred thirty-nine-y of the real property law” — the provisions that currently require DOF to value a condo or co-op as though it were a rental building.

Because the schedule falls by exactly the factor the threshold rises, the entire transition turns on one number: your building’s DOF market value as a share of its sales-based value. At 20% the bill is unchanged. Below 20% it rises; above 20% it falls. Manhattan condos run a median near 21% overall, but about 14% in the $5–10M band and 12% above $10M — so at the top of the market the 2028 revaluation is a tax increase, notwithstanding the lower headline rate.

A unit can also move into or out of the surcharge at the seam without anything about the apartment changing. A condo with a $900,000 DOF value and a $6M sales-based value owes nothing today and roughly $48,000 a year from 2028. One with a $1.05M DOF value and a $4.5M sales-based value owes about $42,000 today and nothing from 2028.

There is no cushion. Nothing in §§1350–1356 provides a hold-harmless, a cap or a phase-in; §1354(a) disapplies every existing abatement, credit and exemption; and §1354(d) places the surcharge outside the class-share machinery that limits ordinary assessed-value growth. Whatever the 2028 number turns out to be, it lands in one year.

The brackets are flat per band, not marginal. Once the Department of Finance market value reaches the entry threshold, that band’s rate applies to the entire value, not to the slice above the line. Tax Law §1353 keys each rate to where the whole value sits and contains no “amount by which the value exceeds” language, and DOF states it directly in its adopted rules: “If a property or cooperative dwelling unit’s valuation exceeds the threshold, the entirety of the property’s value is subject to the surcharge.”

There is no exempt first slice. A condo with a $1,000,000 DOF market value owes $40,000 a year, not $0.

Initial-phase condo / co-op brackets (on DOF market value)

• Under $1,000,000: no surcharge
• $1,000,000 or greater, but under $3,000,000: 4.0% of the full value
• $3,000,000 or greater, but under $5,000,000: 5.25% of the full value
• $5,000,000 or greater: 6.5% of the full value

The $1,000,000 threshold is on DOF market value — the figure on your Notice of Property Value — not the separate assessed value, which is about 45% of it. Under the current Class 2 income-approach methodology, DOF market value is a building-specific fraction of sale price, so there is no reliable rule of thumb. In our own analysis of 61,551 arm’s-length Manhattan condo sales the median is about 21% of price, but it falls steadily as prices rise — roughly 16% in the $3–5M band, 14% in the $5–10M band and 12% above $10M. Method is set out in the trophy-building section. Look up your building’s DOF market value by BBL rather than estimating from what you paid.

1-3 family + post-revaluation brackets (on DOF market value)

• Under $5,000,000: no surcharge
• $5,000,000 or greater, but under $15,000,000: 0.8% of the full value
• $15,000,000 or greater, but under $25,000,000: 1.05% of the full value
• $25,000,000 or greater: 1.3% of the full value

Every boundary is a step, not a ramp. A condo at a $2,999,999 DOF market value owes $120,000 a year. At $3,000,001 it owes $157,500. That $37,500 gap repeats annually for the life of the program, which is what makes a value challenge near a band line worth real money.

Where the statute and DOF’s table disagree

Values landing exactly on an upper band line are genuinely unsettled, and the two authorities do not say the same thing. Tax Law §1353 reads the bands as inclusive at both ends — $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 inclusive at 4.0%, over $3,000,000 through $5,000,000 inclusive at 5.25%, over $5,000,000 at 6.5%, with the Class 1 and post-revaluation schedule running $5,000,000 to $15,000,000 inclusive at 0.8%, over $15,000,000 through $25,000,000 inclusive at 1.05%, and over $25,000,000 at 1.3%. DOF’s published table is inclusive at the bottom and exclusive at the top (“$1,000,000 or greater, but less than $3,000,000”), which pushes a value sitting exactly on an upper line into the higher band.

At exactly $3,000,000 that is the difference between $120,000 and $157,500 a year, and it repeats for the life of the program. We are not resolving it here, and “DOF issues the bill” is a reason to expect the higher number, not a reason to think it is correct. The calculator flags an exact hit on $3M, $5M, $15M or $25M rather than silently picking a side. If your DOF market value lands on one of those figures, it is worth raising on appeal.

There is no disagreement at exactly $1,000,000. Statute and DOF both put it in the 4.0% band, so a condo valued at exactly $1M owes $40,000 — not zero.

Run the calculator to model the math on your specific scenario.

This is the single most useful thing to know about the surcharge, and it is the piece most coverage leaves out. Tax Law §1351 fixes both primary-residence status and the property’s status as of “the January fifth immediately preceding the fiscal year in which the surcharge is imposed.” For the 2026–27 fiscal year, that date was January 5, 2026. For 2027–28, it is January 5, 2027.

A snapshot, not a running tally. Moving in during March, buying in June, signing a qualifying tenant in September, or finishing the renovation that made the place habitable in November does not change that year’s result. There is no partial-year proration: the surcharge is either on for the whole fiscal year or off for the whole fiscal year, decided by the facts on one day the preceding January.

Three consequences worth planning around:

• A mid-year buyer inherits the seller’s determination. DOF declined to adopt an innocent-purchaser safe harbor, so who bears the surcharge for the year of closing is a contract term to negotiate, not something the tax system sorts out for you.
• Changes made now are for next year. If you are restructuring ownership, moving a tenant in, or shifting your primary residence, the January 5 ahead is the date that banks the change.
• Filing an exemption is separate from qualifying for one. The October 6 application is about proving what was already true on January 5 — it is not a way to change the answer after the fact.

The final rules soften this in one narrow, humane way: DOF “deems an individual’s primary residency to continue for one year immediately following their death, hospitalization or temporary stay in a rehabilitation or nursing home.” An apartment does not become a taxable pied-à-terre because its occupant went into care.

The rules here are final. DOF adopted them effective July 14, 2026, so anything you read describing the documentation standards as pending or expected is out of date.

It is also worth being precise about the structure. People talk about “three exemptions,” and there are roughly three occupancy patterns — you live there, your family lives there, your tenant lives there. But the rule is written around whose primary residence the apartment is, and that list is longer. A property qualifies when it is the primary residence of any of the following:

• The owner of the property
• A tenant or subtenant
• One or more individuals who collectively hold a majority interest in the LLC, corporation, or partnership that owns the property
• An immediate family member of the owner or majority interest holder
• The sole beneficiary or beneficiaries of a trust

That third and fifth line matter more than they look. Entity and trust ownership do not, by themselves, put a property outside the primary-residence pathway.

1. The owner’s own primary residence

The simplest path, and the one most often described wrongly. This is not a four-part checklist, and it is not the same test as income-tax domicile. DOF ordinarily asks for a federal or New York State income tax return showing the address, or DMV identification. Where neither exists, voter registration plus other proof can carry it. How many days you spend there is a factor DOF weighs, not a statutory 183-day gate you either clear or fail.

Do not assume you need a New York return, a STAR exemption, a homeowner credit and a majority of nights all at once. Owners are talked out of valid claims by that misreading.

One jurisdictional point that trips people up: this is an NYC surcharge on NYC property. If your New York City apartment is your primary residence, it is not subject to the surcharge — and owning a house in the Hamptons does not change that. The Hamptons house sits outside New York City and is therefore outside this tax entirely. The surcharge bites when the qualifying non-primary residence is itself in New York City. The second home in the equation only matters if it is the city one.

2. An immediate family member’s primary residence

The unit is the primary residence of an immediate family member of the owner, or of a majority-interest holder in the entity that owns it. §1351 defines that term and the list is exhaustive: spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, or grandchild. In-laws, nieces, nephews, cousins and unmarried partners are not on it. The final rules confirm the list is closed rather than illustrative, so a relationship outside it does not qualify however close it is in practice.

3. Full-time tenant treating unit as NYC primary residence

An apartment let to a tenant who treats it as their own primary residence is exempt. The test has two parts and both are required. §1351(m)(2) covers a lessee or sub-lessee who is “a natural person occupying such covered property … pursuant to a bona fide lease agreement negotiated in an arms-length transaction with a term of not less than one year” — and the occupancy must be as a primary residence. The lease alone is not sufficient, and the question is not whether your tenant lives somewhere in New York City; it is whether this unit is their primary residence. DOF asks for the tenant’s own residency documents, not just the lease. A corporate lease to an executive who keeps a home elsewhere does not qualify, however long the term.

What this means for investment-grade rentals: A market-rate apartment rented short-term (corporate housing, executive rentals, Airbnb-style use) does NOT qualify. The exemption is structured to incentivize long-term rental of inventory to actual NYC residents — not to provide a workaround for investment owners.

Separate from the residency question, §1351 puts two categories of property outside the surcharge altogether. These are exclusions, not exemptions: they zero the tax before any bracket logic runs, and they do not depend on who lives there.

• No certificate of occupancy yet. Property “for which a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy is required and has not yet been issued.” New construction and gut renovations awaiting sign-off are not taxable pieds-à-terre while they wait.
• Unsold sponsor units. Residential units subject to an offering plan that have not been sold, and in which no economic interest has been transferred, by the person who filed the plan. A sponsor holding unsold inventory in a new condo is not paying the surcharge on it.

If either applies to you, it is a cleaner answer than an exemption claim, because it does not turn on proving anyone’s residency. It is also the kind of thing a mass mailing keyed to a value screen will miss, which is worth knowing if you received a notice on a building that has not been signed off yet.

The 20% figure that every generic pied-à-terre calculator treats as a rule of thumb is not a rule of thumb. It is written into the statute. Tax Law §1353 sets the initial-phase condo and co-op schedule at exactly five times the post-revaluation rates, on thresholds exactly one fifth as large. The law assumes DOF market value is 20% of sales-based value, and prices the two phases so that a building at exactly 20% pays the same either way.

Real buildings are not at exactly 20%, and the gap is not random — it widens as prices rise. Across 61,551 arm’s-length Manhattan condo sales matched to the contemporaneous DOF roll, the median DOF market value is 21.2% of sale price, with the quartiles at 16.2% and 26.5%. By price band the median falls steadily: 24.5% under $1M, 21.3% from $1–2M, 18.9% from $2–3M, 16.4% from $3–5M, 14.2% from $5–10M, and 11.6% above $10M.

The city’s own numbers say the same thing. The NYC Advisory Commission on Property Tax Reform found a median condo ratio of 0.22 for FY2021, falling from 0.53 for units under $100,000 to 0.12 for units above $10 million; co-ops ran 0.57 down to 0.11. The widely cited illustration is the 220 Central Park South penthouse that sold for $238 million in 2019 and carried a FY2019 DOF market value of $9,370,212 — 3.9%. Treat that as a historical data point from the reform debate, not as a current valuation of that apartment or a prediction of what any particular unit carries today.

The structural reason: NYC Class 2 properties are valued under RPTL §581, which caps the assessment at what the parcel would carry if it were not in condo or co-op form. DOF implements that by valuing the building as though it were a rental. In DOF’s own words, “the law requires that we value co-ops and condos as if they were rental buildings, even though they are not income-producing.” Trophy condos that essentially never rent get valuations bearing little resemblance to market price.

What this means for your number

Because the ratio is building-specific and steeply regressive, it cannot be estimated from a sale price — which is why the calculator now requires your DOF market value for condos and co-ops rather than offering it as an optional override. Take it from your Notice of Property Value, issued each January, or look the building up by BBL on the Department of Finance property portal. Use the Estimated Market Value total, not the assessed value, which is about 45% of it. For a co-op, request the figure from your managing agent. Run the calculator.

The 2028-2029 reckoning

This does not go away in 2028. It inverts. When DOF moves to sales-based valuations, the buildings that have been valued furthest below 20% are the ones whose bills rise most, and the arithmetic is simple: your 2028 bill divided by your current bill is roughly 20% divided by your building’s actual ratio. A building at 14% sees roughly a 40% increase. At 12%, roughly 70%. At 3.9%, the bill multiplies several times over.

Two cautions on that arithmetic. It holds only where the property is taxed in both phases — near the entry thresholds a unit can move into or out of the surcharge entirely. And DOF has not published the 2028 methodology. Its adopted rule says the phase two valuation methodology is “not necessary to discuss at this stage of the rulemaking process,” and nothing in the statute sets a deadline for producing it or says what happens if it is not ready. Anyone giving you a precise 2028 figure today is guessing.

Co-ops are administratively different from condos in the way the pied-à-terre tax flows. The structural distinction: in a co-op, the legal owner of the real estate is the cooperative corporation — individual unit shareholders own shares + a proprietary lease, not real estate. DOF can only bill the legal property owner.

The mechanism

Step 1. DOF identifies units within the co-op building that are subject to the surcharge (i.e., owned by shareholders who don’t claim the unit as their NYC primary residence, family-occupied, or long-term-rental exempt).

Step 2. DOF adds the calculated surcharge for each affected unit to the building’s consolidated property tax bill. The bill goes to the co-op corporation, not to individual shareholders.

Step 3. The corporation collects from the affected shareholders. §1354 puts that obligation on the corporation directly: “each such surcharge shall be collected by the cooperative corporation from the tenant-stockholder.” In practice the managing agent does it through a maintenance line charged only to the affected units or a special assessment against them.

Whether that mechanism actually works in your building depends on your proprietary lease and governing documents. DOF was asked to address this in the rulemaking and expressly declined, noting that the relevant state-law provisions “cannot be amended through a City rulemaking process.” Some co-ops will find their documents already support a unit-specific charge; others may need a lease amendment to create the authority. That is a question for the building’s counsel, and boards that have not asked it yet should.

The intent is that non-pied-à-terre shareholders do not bear the cost, and a well-drafted allocation achieves that. It is not a guarantee anyone can make on a building’s behalf in the abstract: the corporation owes the money to the city whether or not it succeeds in collecting from the shareholders who generated it, and a collection shortfall is a building problem before it is a shareholder problem.

Why this matters for buyers

The tax bill itself goes to the corporation, so a shareholder generally experiences the surcharge as a maintenance or assessment line rather than a bill from the city. Do not read that as a rule that shareholders never hear from DOF directly: DOF corresponds with owners about residency determinations, and the 2026 rollout put notices in front of a very large number of people. Assume you may receive something, and do not ignore it because you own shares rather than real estate. This means:

• The board has to administer the collection — which creates intra-building political dynamics if it’s not handled cleanly
• Past-due collection runs through the proprietary lease, which in many buildings gives the board meaningful remedies. What those remedies are, and whether they extend to terminating a lease over an unpaid surcharge, depends entirely on the document and is a question for the building’s counsel — not something to assume in either direction
• Refinancing or selling the unit doesn’t escape the building’s allocation history — the buyer inherits whatever administrative posture the building established

Why this matters for boards

Co-op boards need an administrative posture on the surcharge allocation, and confirmation that the proprietary lease supports it. The first charges land on the bill due January 1, 2027. Buildings with many non-primary-resident shareholders — super-prime condos and luxury co-ops, including the Park and Fifth Avenue pre-war houses — face the heaviest administrative load.

For shareholders in buildings with significant pied-à-terre exposure, the board’s administrative approach materially affects how clean the experience will be — worth asking about during purchase diligence.

For the first program year DOF issued notices in the summer of 2026, working from a supplemental roll published July 24 — the mass mailing that became the subject of litigation. Later years run on the rules’ own notice cycle rather than that one-off schedule, so do not plan around an August date as if it were permanent; confirm the current year’s timing at nyc.gov/npsurcharge. The first surcharge charges appear on the property tax bill due January 1, 2027.

The two grounds for contest

1. You qualify for an exemption. If you are the owner’s NYC primary residence, the unit is occupied by an owner’s family member, or the unit is leased full-time to a tenant who treats it as their NYC primary residence, you should contest by establishing exemption eligibility.

2. The DOF value is wrong. If the DOF market value used in the calculation is overstated, you can contest it through the Tax Commission. One caution about what that argument is: during the initial phase, Class 2 condo and co-op value is still determined under the income-capitalization framework that RPTL §581 requires. A recent sale price is not proof that the DOF figure is wrong — in this phase the two numbers are not supposed to match, which is the entire reason the condo rates are five times the house rates. A value appeal has to argue the figure is wrong on its own methodology, and pointing at what you paid can hurt more than it helps.

Documentation for a primary-residence claim

DOF works down a rough hierarchy rather than requiring every item:

• A federal or New York State income tax return showing the property address, or DMV identification — either of these ordinarily carries the claim
• Where neither exists, voter registration together with other supporting proof
• Supporting material: utility bills, and the same kind of documentation standard in any primary-residence dispute

There is no “NYC Department of Taxation.” Property matters run through the NYC Department of Finance; state income tax runs through the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance. If a source conflates them, weigh the rest of it accordingly.

Documentation for family-occupied exemption

• Documentation of the family relationship (birth certificates, marriage certificates as applicable)
• The family member’s residency documentation at the address (same as primary-residence above, but for the occupier)

Documentation for tenant exemption

Two things have to be shown, and the second is the one people miss: that the lease qualifies, and that the tenant treats the apartment as their own primary residence.

• The executed lease — arm’s-length, to a natural person, with a term of not less than one year
• The tenant’s own residency proof, on the same hierarchy as a primary-residence claim: a federal or New York State return showing the address, or DMV identification; where neither exists, voter registration together with other supporting proof
• At least one further rental document — a utility bill, proof of rent payment, or renter’s insurance. DOF also accepts a tenant or sub-tenant affidavit accompanied by two such documents

A lease on its own does not carry it. An eighteen-month corporate lease to an executive who lives elsewhere is not exempt, and 19 RCNY §62-01 separately excludes a lease whose circumstances indicate it was entered into primarily to avoid the surcharge.

Two different routes, and why the distinction matters

There is a direct DOF residency process and a separate Tax Commission appeal, and they run on different clocks. Conflating them is how people conclude, wrongly, that one missed date ends the matter.

• DOF. Respond to the notice and file the exemption application by the current deadline — October 6, 2026 for the first year. An appeal of a DOF initial determination generally runs 30 days from the notice.
• Tax Commission. For tax years 2026–27 and 2027–28, surcharge appeals are due March 1, 2027 for Class 2 property and March 15, 2027 for Class 1. If you went to DOF first, you may appeal its final determination by that March deadline or within 30 days of the date on the final determination notice, whichever is later.

A residency claim and a value challenge can be brought in the same appeal, and often should be. Two constraints to respect: only one surcharge appeal may be filed per property per year, and the market-value piece must still be filed by the applicable March 1 or March 15 date — the 30-day extension covers the residency determination, not the valuation.

None of which is a reason to let the DOF deadline slide. It is the cheapest and fastest route, it is the one that can resolve the matter without a formal appeal, and a late filer is arguing from a worse position even where a route remains open. Engage your tax attorney when the notice arrives, not when the March date approaches.

Less than the framing usually suggests. The surcharge is facially neutral: it turns on whether the apartment is somebody’s primary residence, not on the owner’s nationality or immigration status. A domestic owner with a Greenwich house and a New York pied-à-terre faces the same substantive rule as a foreign owner with the same apartment. What differs is how easy the evidence is to assemble, not whether the pathway exists.

The primary-residence pathway is open

Nationality does not close it. If the New York apartment is genuinely the owner’s primary residence, that can be established with the evidence DOF accepts — a federal or state return showing the address, DMV identification, or, failing those, voter registration plus supporting proof. A foreign national who cannot produce a US return has a harder evidentiary path, and in many cases the apartment simply is not their primary residence, which is the real reason the surcharge lands. But “foreign owners have no primary-residence pathway” is wrong as a statement of the rule.

Long-term rental exemption is structurally available

Foreign owners CAN qualify by renting the unit full-time to an NYC primary resident on a long-term lease. This is the primary work-around: convert the property from a sometimes- used pied-à-terre to a true investment rental. The trade-off: lose personal use, gain exemption from the tax.

Trust and LLC ownership: settled, and better than feared

Most foreign buyers hold through a trust or an LLC, and the rules on this are now final, not pending. Entity ownership does not automatically disqualify a claim. The test looks through to people: a property qualifies when it is the primary residence of one or more individuals who collectively hold a majority interest in the owning LLC, corporation or partnership, of an immediate family member of such a holder, or of the sole beneficiary or beneficiaries of an owning trust.

So the structure is not the problem. The question is who lives there and what can be evidenced — the same question a directly-held apartment faces.

FIRPTA is a separate regime, and only on sale

The surcharge and the federal Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act do not interact. FIRPTA is a withholding mechanism — generally on a foreign seller’s amount realized, subject to exceptions and reduced-rate certificates — and it is not the seller’s final tax; it is credited against the actual liability, and over-withholding is refundable. It also applies only on a disposition. So it is not that “both apply” during the hold: the surcharge is an annual carrying cost, and FIRPTA may separately apply on a later sale. For underwriting, model them on different timelines.

This is no longer hypothetical, and the case that exists is narrower than the one people expected.

What was filed, and what happened

A group of city homeowners filed a petition on August 7, 2026 in Richmond County Supreme Court — O’Brien v. City of New York. On August 10 the court issued a temporary restraining order halting the rollout. On August 13 an appellate court permitted the City to proceed. The parties returned on August 31 for argument on the City’s motion to dismiss, and as of September 2026 a decision on that motion was still pending.

The distinction that matters

The petition attacks the rollout and the notice procedure, not the validity of the surcharge. The homeowners say their apartments are primary residences that the City nonetheless flagged, that DOF did not make individualized determinations before issuing notices, and that a supplemental roll naming roughly 960,000 properties put the burden of proof on the wrong people.

Nobody in this case is arguing the State lacked authority to create the tax. That shapes the realistic range of outcomes: a ruling against the City most likely produces a slower, cleaner process, not the disappearance of the liability. Underwrite the surcharge as a durable carrying cost with a contested first year.

What we are not going to tell you

How long it takes, how it comes out, or whether money paid now comes back. Those depend on a pending motion and on arguments that have not been made yet. If you are deciding something large on the strength of a predicted outcome here, that is a conversation for litigation counsel rather than a real estate team — and in the meantime the defensible posture is to file on time and preserve every position you would want if the surcharge stands.

Status as of September 20, 2026. A pending motion can move quickly; confirm the current posture before relying on it. Our contemporaneous write-up of the August order is here.