Does 'contiguous' in New York's police-officer residency statute mean a county that physically shares a border, or just a county that is close by? Can a Syracuse police officer live in Oneida County?

Plain-English summary

Syracuse's Corporation Counsel asked the AG whether "contiguous" in Public Officers Law § 3(2), the statute that relaxes municipal residency requirements for police officers, means physically sharing a border or just being nearby. Some Syracuse police officers wanted to live in Oneida County. The catch: Syracuse is in Onondaga County, and Oneida County does not touch Onondaga County. Madison County is between them.

Holding. "Contiguous" means sharing a border. Therefore Oneida County is not "contiguous" to Onondaga County and Syracuse police officers may not live there.

The statute and its built-in distance fan. POL § 3(2) lets a police officer with an otherwise-applicable residency rule live in:

• (a) the same county as the municipality.
• (b) a county within the state contiguous to the county.
• (c) a county within the state contiguous to the municipality.
• (d) a county contiguous to a (c) county, less than 15 miles from the municipality (measured nearest-boundary to nearest-boundary).
• (e) a county contiguous to a (d) county, less than 30 miles from the municipality.

Why "contiguous" has to mean "touching." The AG ran three independent textual and historical proofs:

1. Ordinary meaning. Dictionaries (American Heritage; Black's) define contiguous as "sharing an edge or boundary; touching." Per Rosner v. Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. and Sega v. State, statutory words without a controlling definition take their ordinary meaning.

2. Statutory structure. Subdivisions (c), (d), and (e) build a 30-mile, three-step fan: county touching the municipality, then a county touching that one (within 15 miles), then a county touching that one (within 30 miles). The whole stepwise structure makes sense only if "contiguous" means "touching." If "contiguous" meant "in close proximity," any county whose border was within 30 miles would already qualify, and the stepwise structure would be redundant.

3. Legislative history. Section 3(2) was enacted in 1960 to relieve NYC police officers, many of whom were violating the city's residency requirement because of the housing shortage. An alternative 1960 bill (A.4627) defined contiguous specially to capture Rockland County, which is separated from NYC by the Hudson River. The fact that the Legislature thought it needed a special definition to reach Rockland confirms that the ordinary "touching" meaning did not include water-separated counties. The Governor vetoed A.4627 in favor of the bill that became POL § 3(2), describing the chosen bill as "more limited as to the areas outside the employing municipality in which police officers may live."

Applied to Syracuse. Onondaga County is the city's county. The counties touching Onondaga are Oswego, Cayuga, Cortland, Madison, and Wayne. Oneida County does not touch Onondaga. Syracuse police officers can live in any of the touching counties (subdivision (b)). Going further out, they can reach (under (d) and (e)) counties touching a touching county, with the 15- and 30-mile caps. Oneida might fit within (d) or (e) if the mileage works out and the chain runs through Madison County. The opinion does not extend the analysis to that further question, but flags that the residency rule does have an outward step beyond the immediate contiguous counties.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. 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

Can a Syracuse officer live in Oneida County by qualifying under subdivision (d) or (e)?
The opinion does not address this. The (d) and (e) steps require the next county out to be contiguous to a (c) or (d) county AND within 15 or 30 miles of the municipality at the nearest-boundary measurement. Whether Oneida County qualifies through Madison County under (d) or (e) is a measurement question the opinion left open.

What about counties separated only by a river, like Manhattan and Brooklyn-vs-Hudson?
The 1960 Rockland County legislative history is instructive: water-separated counties are not "contiguous" under the ordinary reading. POL § 3(2)(d) and (e) provide the relief path for water-separated counties only if the mileage works out.

Could the Syracuse charter be amended to allow Oneida residency anyway?
A city charter can authorize broader residency than POL § 3 allows. The Public Officers Law sets the floor (residency required); § 3(2) is a state-level exception. A more permissive local rule could in theory operate alongside, but POL § 3 generally controls. Counsel should check current law before relying on a local override.

Does this analysis apply to non-police municipal employees?
No. POL § 3(2) is the police-specific exception. Other employees fall under the general POL § 3(1) residency rule (unless covered by another statutory carve-out).

What about a police officer hired before this opinion who already lives in Oneida County?
The opinion does not address grandfathering. POL § 3 has historically been read as a condition of continued employment, not just a hiring rule, but enforcement decisions are typically a matter of the appointing authority. Officers and counsel facing the actual situation should not rely on this opinion alone.

Background and statutory framework

POL § 3(1). Default: a person must reside within the political subdivision or municipal corporation for which they are chosen or in which their official functions are required. This is the baseline.

POL § 3(2). Police-officer-specific exception, enacted in 1960 and amended in 1962 and 1966 to widen the geographic relief. Allows residency in:

• (a) same county;
• (b) contiguous county;
• (c) county contiguous to the municipality;
• (d) county contiguous to (c) within 15 miles;
• (e) county contiguous to (d) within 30 miles.

All counties must be within New York State.

1960 enactment context. NYC police officer residency relief was the original driver. Affordability issues caused thousands of officers to live outside the City in violation of POL § 3. The 1960 chapter 1084 amendment gave them the (a)/(b)/(c) options. The 1962 and 1966 amendments added (d) and (e).

Rejected A.4627 (1960). Would have specially defined "contiguous" to include counties separated from a city of over 1 million by no more than 10 miles of public waters, designed to bring Rockland County into NYC's residency relief. Vetoed.

Citations

• Public Officers Law § 3 (general residency); § 3(1) (default residency requirement); § 3(2)(a)-(e) (police-officer geographic exceptions).
• Rosner v. Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 96 N.Y.2d 475, 479 (2001) (ordinary meaning canon).
• Sega v. State of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 183, 190-91 (1983) (ordinary meaning; statutory text controls).
• 1960 Governor's Memorandum on Approval (residency relief purpose).
• Act of Apr. 30, 1960, ch. 1084 (original (a)/(b)/(c) amendment).
• Act of Mar. 30, 1962, ch. 248; Act of Apr. 30, 1962, ch. 969 (subsequent expansions).
• Act of Aug. 4, 1966, ch. 1004 ((e) extension).
• 1960 N.Y. Assembly Bill A.4627 (rejected alternative defining "contiguous" to include water-separated counties).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_2008-10_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

Public Officers Law §§ 3, 3(1), 3(2), 3(2)(c), 3(2)(d), 3(2)(e)

"Contiguous" as used in Public Officers Law § 3(2) means "sharing a border" or "touching"; police officers for the city of Syracuse may not live in Oneida County because that county is not contiguous to Onondaga County.

October 22, 2008

Rory A. McMahon
Corporation Counsel
City of Syracuse
300 City Hall
Syracuse, New York 13202

Informal Opinion
No. 2008-10

Dear Mr. McMahon:

You have requested an opinion as to the meaning of particular statutory language exempting city police officers from residing within the City. Public Officers Law § 3 generally provides that, in order to hold a local civil office, a person must reside within the political subdivision or municipal corporation by which he is employed. Public Officers Law § 3(1). Section 3 includes many exceptions to this general rule. The exception relevant here, relating to residency of police officers, provides that

[n]either the provisions of this section or of any general, special or local law, charter, code, ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation, requiring a person to be a resident of the political subdivision or municipal corporation of the state for which he shall be chosen or within which his official functions are required to be exercised, shall apply to the appointment of a person as a member of the police force of any political subdivision or municipal corporation of the state if such person resides (a) in the county in which such political subdivision or municipal corporation is located; or (b) in a county within the state contiguous to the county in which such political subdivision or municipal corporation is located; or (c) in a county within the state contiguous to such political subdivision or municipal corporation; or (d) in a county within the state contiguous to a county described in item (c) hereof where the former is less than fifteen miles from such political subdivision or municipal corporation, measured from their respective nearest boundary lines; or (e) in a county within the state contiguous to a county described in item (d) hereof where the former is less than thirty miles from such political subdivision or municipal corporation, measured from their respective nearest boundary lines.

Public Officers Law § 3(2) (emphasis added). Specifically, you have asked us whether the term "contiguous" as it is used in the underlined language above refers to counties that share a border with the county in which the political subdivision or municipal corporation that employs the police officer is located, or whether it refers to counties in close proximity to, but not touching, the county in which the political subdivision or municipal corporation is located.

You have explained that the City, which is located in Onondaga County, by charter provision requires that its officers and employees live within the City. Public Officers Law § 3(2) thus establishes an exception to the City's requirement for police officers. Your question as to the meaning of "contiguous" arises because Onondaga County and Oneida County do not share a border, but instead are separated by a portion of Madison County. Certain police officers would like to live in Oneida County. To be authorized to do so, Oneida County must be deemed to be "contiguous" to Onondaga County under Public Officers Law § 3(2). As explained more fully below, we are of the opinion that "contiguous" in Public Officers Law § 3(2) means that the counties share a border, and therefore police officers for the City may not reside in Oneida County.

I. Analysis

We arrive at the conclusion that "contiguous" in Public Officers Law § 3(2) means that the counties in which police officers are authorized to live must share a border with or touch Onondaga County for several reasons. First, the ordinary meaning of "contiguous" supports the conclusion that the borders of the counties must touch one another. In the absence of any controlling statutory definition, the words of a statute generally should be construed according to their ordinary meaning. Rosner v. Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 96 N.Y.2d 475, 479 (2001); Sega v. State of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 183, 190-191 (1983). Public Officers Law does not provide a definition of "contiguous." Its primary ordinary meaning is "[s]haring an edge or boundary; touching," The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 397 (4th ed. 2000), and "[t]ouching at a point or along a boundary," Black's Law Dictionary 338 (8th ed. 2004).

Second, the term "contiguous" is used throughout Public Officers Law § 3(2). In many of those uses it would be entirely implausible to construe the term to mean "in close proximity," as has been proposed, rather than "touching." Subdivisions (c), (d) and (e) of section 3(2) provide that a member of the police force of any political subdivision or municipal corporation may reside

(c) in a county within the state contiguous to such political subdivision or municipal corporation; or (d) in a county within the state contiguous to a county described in item (c) hereof where the former is less than fifteen miles from such political subdivision or municipal corporation, measured from their respective nearest boundary lines; or (e) in a county within the state contiguous to a county described in item (d) hereof where the former is less than thirty miles from such political subdivision or municipal corporation, measured from their respective nearest boundary lines.

In other words, this language allows a police officer of a municipal corporation that has an applicable residency requirement to reside within a county that is contiguous to the municipal corporation (County A); a county that is contiguous to County A and is within 15 miles of the municipal corporation (County B); or a county that is contiguous to County B and is within 30 miles of the municipal corporation (County C), as long as all of the described counties are within the State. Thus, this portion of section 3(2) authorizes a police officer to reside up to three counties away and 30 miles (from the border of the municipal corporation to the border of the county of residence) from the municipal corporation that employs him. If the term "contiguous" meant "close to but not touching," this stepwise description of counties would be entirely unnecessary, because any county with a border within a 30-mile radius of the border of the employing municipal corporation would qualify as "contiguous." Construing "contiguous" to mean "touching" is the most sensible construction of this language throughout section 3(2).

Third, construing "contiguous" to mean "touching" is consistent with the legislative history to section 3(2). Before the current "contiguous" language of section 3(2) was enacted, New York City required its police officers to live within New York City's borders. See Governor's Memorandum on Approval, reprinted in 1960 N.Y.S. Legislative Annual 591, 592. Police officers found this requirement difficult to meet because of the lack of affordable housing available within New York City's boundaries. Id. at 592. As a result, thousands of New York City police officers lived outside New York City in violation of the residency requirement. Id. Section 3(2) was amended in 1960 to allow police officers to reside in the county in which the municipality was located, in a county contiguous to the county in which the municipality was located, or in a county contiguous to the municipality. Act of Apr. 30, 1960, ch. 1084, § 1, 1960 McKinney's N.Y. Laws 1787. The provision allowing police officers to reside in counties "contiguous" to the municipality was meant to relieve police officers employed by New York City from having to live either within New York City or in violation of the law. Governor's Memorandum on Approval, reprinted in 1960 N.Y.S. Legislative Annual at 592.

An alternative bill allowing police officers to live in nearby counties was passed by the Legislature in the same session, but was not signed into law. This alternative bill provided that "[f]or purposes of this subdivision, any county separated from a city of more than one million inhabitants by not more than ten miles of public waters measured from the most southerly point of such county shall be deemed to be contiguous to such city." 1960 N.Y. Assembly Bill A.4627. This language defining "contiguous" was expressly designed to allow New York City police officers to live in Rockland County, which does not share a border with New York City but is separated by the Hudson River. See Letter of the State Department of Civil Service (April 7, 1960), reprinted in Bill Jacket to ch. 1084, at 33 (recommending the adoption of A.4627 "[i]n view of Rockland County's close proximity to New York City and the ease of travel between that county and the City").

This amendment would have been unnecessary if "contiguous" meant "in close proximity," because Rockland County was separated from New York City by only several miles of water. This proposal was rejected by the Governor in favor of the bill that was enacted as chapter 1084, which he described as "more limited as to the areas outside the employing municipality in which police officers may live." See Governor's Veto Memorandum to A.4627, reprinted in 1960 N.Y.S. Legislative Annual 660.

The histories of these two bills confirm that the Legislature used the term "contiguous" to mean "touching" or "sharing a border" and not "in close proximity."

In summary, we conclude that the term "contiguous" as it is used in Public Officers Law § 3(2) means that borders must touch. Therefore, because the City requires its officers and employees to reside within the City, Public Officers Law § 3(2) authorizes a police officer for the City to reside within a county that touches Onondaga County. We thus further conclude that a police officer of the City may not live in Oneida County.

The Attorney General issues formal opinions only to officers and departments of state government. Thus, this is an informal opinion rendered to assist you in advising the municipality you represent.

Very truly yours,

KATHRYN SHEINGOLD
Assistant Solicitor General
In Charge of Opinions