Can a New York city pass a local law letting its city court judge live in the county instead of the city?

Plain-English summary

Cohoes wanted to adopt a local law permitting an appointed Cohoes City Court judge to reside outside the city but within Albany County. The state-level rules (Public Officers Law § 3 and Uniform City Court Act § 2104) require the judge to live in the city. The city attorney recognized the conflict but asked whether home rule authority might override the state requirement.

The AG concluded no. Two independent doctrines blocked the local law.

First, even setting aside the "general law" inconsistency analysis, N.Y. Const. Art. IX § 3(a)(2) carves out from home rule any subject relating to "the courts as required or provided by article VI of this constitution." Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 reinforces the carve-out: a local legislative body cannot adopt a local law that supersedes a State statute if the local law "applies or affects the courts as required or provided by article six of the constitution." Adler v. Deegan (1929) (Cardozo, J., concurring) had described "the organization of the courts" and "the procedure therein" as "affairs exclusively those of the State."

Second, residency is a "qualification" for office. Art. VI § 20(c) of the Constitution specifically gives the Legislature power to prescribe qualifications for city court judges (outside New York City). Numerous statutes use the word "qualifications" to describe residency requirements: Public Officers Law § 3 ("Qualifications for holding office"); Education Law § 2603 ("Qualifications of voters"); Election Law § 5-102 ("Qualifications of voters"); Indian Law § 152 ("Qualifications for office"). Treating residency as a "qualification" brings it squarely within the Legislature's Art. VI § 20(c) authority and outside home rule's reach.

The Cohoes corporation counsel had raised a defensive point: that Art. VI § 17 (the Legislature's general power to "regulate" city courts) makes no specific reference to qualifications. The AG addressed this in a footnote: § 20(c) directly speaks to qualifications, so § 17's silence has no significance.

Prior AG opinions had reached the same conclusion. 1975 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 268 (village may not change residency by local law for village justices; same analysis under Art. IX § 3(a) and Art. VI § 20(c)). 1974 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 66 (same for city court judges). The Cohoes situation fit the same pattern.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What if the city wanted to require county-wide residency rather than city-only?

The AG's logic applies regardless of direction. Loosening or tightening the State residency rule by local law would equally infringe on the Legislature's reserved authority over judicial qualifications.

Is residency really a "qualification"?

The AG cited four state statutes that describe residency requirements as "qualifications." The Public Officers Law § 3 caption is explicit. The Court of Appeals has not consistently used a different framework, so the AG treated the question as settled.

Could the City Charter address it?

A city charter is itself a local law. The Constitution's Art. IX § 3(a)(2) carve-out and Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 reach city charter provisions equally. The charter cannot do what an ordinary local law cannot do.

What about a constitutional amendment?

That is the only path to alter the analysis. Article VI § 20(c)'s grant of authority to the Legislature, paired with Article IX § 3(a)(2), is a constitutional allocation; only constitutional amendment moves the line.

Does this affect town and village justices?

Yes. The same Article IX § 3(a) carve-out and Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 limit reach all local courts established under Article VI. The 1975 AG opinion the AG cited specifically addressed village justices and applied the same rule.

Background and statutory framework

N.Y. Const. Art. VI § 17 confers on the Legislature general power to "regulate" district, town, village, and city courts outside New York City. § 20(c) specifically reserves to the Legislature the power to prescribe qualifications for judges of those courts (other than the qualifications set forth in § 20(a)).

N.Y. Const. Art. IX § 2(c) gives local governments power to enact local laws not inconsistent with the Constitution or general laws. § 3(a) carves out specific subjects from local law authority, including (2) "the courts as required or provided by article VI of this constitution."

Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 lists the limits on local law-making power. It prohibits a local legislative body from adopting a local law that supersedes a State statute if the local law applies to or affects the courts as required by Article VI.

Public Officers Law § 3 sets residency requirements for state and local officers (including a requirement that city officers be city residents).

Uniform City Court Act § 2104 specifically requires city court judges to be residents of their cities.

Adler v. Deegan (1929) is the foundational New York case on the State-affairs / local-affairs distinction; Judge Cardozo's concurring opinion is often cited for the proposition that court organization is exclusively a state matter.

Citations

• N.Y. Const. Art. VI § 17 (Legislature's general regulatory power over city courts).
• N.Y. Const. Art. VI § 20(c) (Legislature prescribes qualifications for city court judges).
• N.Y. Const. Art. IX § 2(c) (home rule power subject to consistency with Constitution and general laws).
• N.Y. Const. Art. IX § 3(a)(2) (home rule carve-out for courts under Article VI).
• Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 (local law may not supersede state statute applying or affecting Article VI courts).
• Public Officers Law § 3 (residency qualification for officers).
• Uniform City Court Act § 2104 (city court judge must reside in the city).
• Adler v. Deegan, 251 N.Y. 467 (1929) (Cardozo, J., concurring: court organization is a State affair).
• Nydick v. Suffolk County Legislature, 81 Misc.2d 786 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 1975) (validity of local law inconsistent with State statute often depends on whether statute is "general law").
• 1975 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 268 (village may not change residency qualification for village justice by local law).
• 1974 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 66 (same conclusion for city court judges).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_2002-6_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

Opn. No. 2002-6
N.Y. CONST., ART. VI, § 20(c); ART. IX, §§ 2(c), 3; MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW § 11;
PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW § 3; UNIFORM CITY COURT ACT § 2104.
A judge of a city court is required to be a resident of the city in which he or she is elected or appointed.
March 1, 2002
Darren B. Derosia, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
City of Cohoes
City Hall
97 Mohawk Street
Cohoes, NY 12047-2897

Informal Opinion
No. 2002-6

Dear Mr. Derosia:
You have asked whether the City of Cohoes may adopt a local law permitting a city court judge
appointed by the City of Cohoes to reside outside Cohoes, but within the County of Albany. As you
acknowledge in your letter, this law would be inconsistent with Public Officers Law § 3 and Uniform
City Court Act § 2104, both of which require a city court judge to be a resident of the city in which he or
she is elected or appointed. We conclude that the City of Cohoes may not adopt a local law concerning
the residency requirements for city court judges that is inconsistent with these two State laws.
Article IX of the New York State Constitution confers on local governments the power to adopt
local laws that are not inconsistent with the Constitution itself or with any "general law" enacted by the
Legislature. N.Y. Const., art. IX, § 2(c). Accordingly, when a local government adopts a law that is
inconsistent with a State statute, the validity of the local law often will depend on whether the State
statute qualifies as a "general law" under article IX, § 3 of the State Constitution. See, e.g., Nydick v.
Suffolk County Legislature, 81 Misc.2d 786, 791 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 1975), aff'd 47 A.D.2d 241 (2d
Dep't 1975), aff'd 36 N.Y.2d 951 (1975). As you point out, it is arguable that neither Public Officers
Law § 3 nor Uniform City Court Act § 2104 qualifies as a "general law," because both provisions
exempt some cities from the general requirement that city court judges be residents of the cities in which
they are elected or appointed.
But regardless of whether these statutes are "general laws," article IX, § 3(a) of the State
Constitution appears to foreclose the adoption of the local law you describe. Subsection 3(a) of article
IX imposes several specific limitations on the home rule powers conferred on local governments by the
Constitution. It provides in relevant part:
Except as expressly provided, nothing in this article shall restrict or impair any power
of the legislature in relation to:
...
(2) The courts as required or provided by article VI of this constitution . . . .
N.Y. Const., art. IX, § 3(a). In effect, this section precludes the adoption of any local law that is
inconsistent with a State law, if the State law was enacted pursuant to the Legislature's constitutional
authority over the courts as set forth in article VI.
A similar restriction appears in Municipal Home Rule Law § 11, which provides that a local
legislative body "shall not be deemed authorized by this chapter to adopt a local law which supersedes a
State statute, if such local law . . . [a]pplies or affects the courts as required or provided by article six of
the constitution." See Adler v. Deegan, 251 N.Y. 467, 489 (1929) (Cardozo, J., concurring)
(characterizing "the organization of the courts" and "the procedure therein" as "affairs exclusively those
of the State").
Among the powers that article VI of the Constitution specifically confers on the Legislature "in
relation to . . . the courts" is the power to prescribe the qualifications for city court judges. This power is
set forth in article VI, § 20(c), which provides in relevant part:
Qualifications for and restrictions upon the judges of district, town, village or city courts
outside the city of New York, other than such qualifications and restrictions specifically set
forth in subdivision a of this section, shall be prescribed by the legislature, provided,
however, that the legislature shall require a course of training and education to be
completed by the justices of town and village courts selected after the effective date of this
article who have not been admitted to practice law in this state.
N.Y. Const., art. VI, § 20(c). Because article VI specifically provides the Legislature with the power to
prescribe the qualifications of city court judges, local governments are foreclosed, both by article IX, § 3
(a) and by Municipal Home Rule Law § 11, from enacting local laws inconsistent with State laws
concerning the "qualifications" of city court judges.
As you acknowledge in your letter, residency requirements are a form of "qualification." The
description accorded to these requirements by numerous state statutes reinforce this conclusion. For
example, the statute that establishes a residency requirement for city officers, Public Officers Law § 3, is
entitled "Qualifications for holding office." See also Education Law § 2603 (entitled "Qualifications of
voters"; includes residency requirement); Election Law § 5-102 (entitled "Qualifications of voters";
includes residency requirement); Indian Law § 152 (entitled "Qualifications for office"; includes
residency requirement).
In summary, because residency is a "qualification" and the Constitution reserves to the Legislature
the power to prescribe the qualifications of city court judges, a local legislative body may not adopt a
local law that is inconsistent with a State law concerning the residency qualifications of city court
judges.
This conclusion is consistent with conclusions reached in other informal opinions of the Attorney
General. For example, in 1975, the Attorney General issued an informal opinion concluding that "[a]
village has no authority to change by local law the residency qualification or restriction for its village
justice." 1975 Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 268. This conclusion was based on article IX, § 3(a) of the State
Constitution, as well as on article VI, § 20(c) of the Constitution. The Attorney General summarized his
reasoning as follows:
The grant of Home Rule power contains a restriction on its use concerning matters judicial
as contained in Article VI of the Constitution which states that the Legislature shall
prescribe the qualifications for and restrictions upon the judges of local courts of inferior
jurisdiction. The Legislature has set residency qualifications for and restrictions upon
village justices. In our opinion, these may not be changed by local law.
1975 Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 268, at 269. See also 1974 Op. Atty. Gen (Inf.) 66 (article IX, § 3(a) of
Constitution forecloses local government from adopting local law inconsistent with State statute
concerning residency qualification for city court judge).
We conclude that the City of Cohoes may not adopt a local law permitting a city court judge
appointed by the City of Cohoes to reside outside Cohoes, but within the County of Albany. Such a local
law would be inconsistent with State laws establishing a residency qualification for city court judges,
and therefore would intrude impermissibly upon the State Legislature's constitutional power to prescribe
the qualifications of judges.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of State
government. This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office.
Very truly yours,
JAMES D. COLE
Assistant Solicitor General
In Charge of Opinions
By:_____
ERIC JOHNSON
Assistant Solicitor General

1 In your letter, you note that article VI, § 17, which confers on the Legislature the power to "regulate" the city courts,
contains no reference to qualifications for city court judges. This provision, however, does not alter our conclusion. Because
article VI, § 20 specifically confers on the Legislature the power to prescribe the qualifications of city court judges, the
absence of such a provision in § 17 plainly has no significance as to whether such authority is reserved to the Legislature.

Return to the Index Page
Return to the Home Page