Zohran Mamdani, at 34 years old, was recently elected as the new mayor of New York City, achieving several historic firsts in the process. He is the city’s first Muslim mayor, the first South Asian to hold the office, and the first person born in Africa to assume the position. His election represents a major milestone in the city’s political and cultural history, reflecting the growing diversity of New York City’s electorate. Voters have increasingly favored leaders who reflect the city’s multifaceted demographics, making Mamdani’s victory emblematic of broader social and political shifts. The election has been widely celebrated as a moment of representation for communities that historically have been underrepresented in high-level city leadership.

Although Mamdani is scheduled to be sworn in as the city’s 111th mayor in January 2026, recent historical research suggests that this numbering may be technically inaccurate. Historian Paul Hortenstine uncovered a long-overlooked discrepancy while investigating the city’s early political history and its connections to the slave trade. The findings indicate that one of the city’s early mayors, Matthias Nicolls, officially recorded as the sixth mayor, actually served two non-consecutive terms—in 1672 and again in 1675. Hortenstine argues that standard political counting conventions would consider each term separately, similar to how non-consecutive U.S. presidential terms are numbered, which would effectively shift the numbering of every subsequent mayor by one.

The error, which went unnoticed for centuries, originated from a misinterpreted 17th-century archival entry. Nicolls’ second term was never officially counted, meaning that all mayors who followed were assigned numbers one below their actual place in the historical sequence. This minor but intriguing historical oversight demonstrates how gaps or errors in archival records can ripple forward, affecting ceremonial and symbolic designations even hundreds of years later. Hortenstine has formally informed the mayor’s office of his findings, explaining the technical inaccuracy and the basis for the correction. While the issue does not change the responsibilities or legitimacy of the office, it raises interesting questions about how historical records are maintained and interpreted over time.

Interestingly, Hortenstine’s research is not the first time this discrepancy has been identified. Historian Peter R. Christoph raised the same concern in 1989, questioning the accuracy of the numbering system for nearly a hundred mayors. Despite Christoph’s warning, no correction was made, leaving the ceremonial numbering inconsistent with historical reality. The fact that the issue has resurfaced more than three decades later highlights the challenges of reconciling historical documentation with modern interpretations, as well as the persistence of small errors in official records. This historical footnote underscores that even institutions as longstanding as the New York City mayoralty are subject to the complexities and imperfections inherent in centuries of record-keeping.

Importantly, the numbering discrepancy does not affect Mamdani’s authority, responsibilities, or the legitimacy of his upcoming administration. The research pertains only to ceremonial sequencing, meaning that the title of “111th mayor” is historically debatable but carries no practical implications for governance. Any official correction would require extensive updates to historical records, city archives, official publications, and public-facing documents, a process that may prove cumbersome. At present, it remains unclear whether city officials will undertake such a revision, leaving the numbering issue as an interesting historical nuance rather than a pressing administrative concern. In this sense, Mamdani’s term will proceed unaffected, with the focus remaining on the substantive aspects of his groundbreaking administration.

As Mamdani prepares for his inauguration, this historical curiosity adds an unexpected layer to his tenure. Beyond the social and political significance of his election, the numbering anomaly serves as a reminder of the city’s long and sometimes imperfect history, reflecting centuries of record-keeping challenges and evolving interpretations of political service. For historians and the public alike, the discrepancy highlights the importance of ongoing research and critical examination of archival sources. While it is a minor detail in the context of Mamdani’s historic election, it enriches the story of New York City’s political lineage, providing an intriguing footnote to an already momentous moment in the city’s history. His term promises to be groundbreaking, and now it will also be marked by this curious, if symbolic, adjustment to the official historical record.