New York Assembly Bill A03849

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/25
• Refer: 1/30/25
• Report Pass: 5/20/25
• Refer: 5/20/25
• Report Pass: 6/17/25

Caption

Repeals provisions relating to allowing attorneys having offices in the state to reside in an adjoining state.

Summary

This bill repeals section 470 of the Judiciary Law, the provision that currently requires attorneys admitted to practice in New York who maintain an office in the state to also reside in an adjoining state. By striking that section entirely, the bill would remove the statutory residency restriction tied to maintaining a New York office. In practical terms, the measure would allow attorneys to practice from an office in New York without having to live in a neighboring state such as New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Vermont, or Massachusetts. The bill takes effect immediately upon enactment and would change the eligibility and practice rules for attorneys subject to New York’s licensing and office requirements.

Impact

The bill would amend New York’s Judiciary Law by eliminating section 470, thereby removing a residency-based condition on attorneys who keep offices in the state. This would affect lawyers admitted in New York, especially those who live outside the state but want to maintain a New York office, and it could reduce barriers to practice for out-of-state residents. It would also likely affect the interpretation and enforcement of attorney licensing and office-location rules in New York.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests generally favorable support, though not unanimous. The Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced the bill by a 13-7 vote, and the Assembly Rules Committee later reported it favorably by a 21-9 vote. That pattern indicates meaningful support for repealing the residency restriction, but also a notable minority of members who were not persuaded.

Contention

The main point of contention is whether New York should continue to impose a residency-related requirement on attorneys who maintain offices in the state. Supporters appear to favor removing what they likely view as an outdated or restrictive rule that limits attorney mobility and practice flexibility. Opponents likely have concerns about preserving a connection between New York practice and residency, as well as the broader policy implications of loosening professional regulation for lawyers.