•  Summary 
  •  
  •  Actions 
  •  
  •  Committee Votes 
  •  
  •  Floor Votes 
  •  
  •  Memo 
  •  
  •  Text 
  •  
  •  LFIN 
  •  
  •  Chamber Video/Transcript 

A03849 Summary:

BILL NOA03849
 
SAME ASSAME AS S09793
 
SPONSORWeprin
 
COSPNSRPaulin, Dinowitz, Sayegh
 
MLTSPNSR
 
Rpld §470, Judy L
 
Repeals provisions relating to allowing attorneys having offices in the state to reside in an adjoining state.
Go to top    

A03849 Actions:

BILL NOA03849
 
01/30/2025referred to judiciary
05/20/2025reported referred to rules
06/17/2025reported
06/17/2025rules report cal.858
06/17/2025ordered to third reading rules cal.858
06/17/2025substituted by s2422
 S02422 AMEND= HOYLMAN-SIGAL
 01/07/2026ordered to third reading cal.117
 01/17/2025REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
 02/11/20251ST REPORT CAL.346
 02/12/20252ND REPORT CAL.
 02/24/2025ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
 03/10/2025PASSED SENATE
 03/10/2025DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
 03/10/2025referred to judiciary
 06/17/2025substituted for a3849
 06/17/2025ordered to third reading rules cal.858
Go to top

A03849 Memo:

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
 
BILL NUMBER: A3849
 
SPONSOR: Weprin
  TITLE OF BILL: An act to repeal section 470 of the judiciary law, relating to allowing attorneys having offices in the state to reside in an adjoining state   PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: The purpose of this bill is to remove the current inability, of lawyers admitted in New York to practice in the State if they neither reside nor have an office in the state.   SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1 of the bill repeals section 470 of the Judiciary law. Section 2 of the bill is the effective date.   JUSTIFICATION: Section 470 of the Judiciary Law, as interpreted by the New York State Court of Appeals in Schoenefeld v. State of New York, 25 N.Y.3d 22 (2015), requires "nonresident attorneys practicing in New York to main- tain a physical law officer here." (Pg. 27 of decision). The Court of Appeals reaffirmed this requirement in Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. v. Cheyne Specialty Finance Fund L.P. (2019). Section 470 was enacted in its current form in 1909 following predeces- sor statutes dating from 1862. A central concern at the time was the difficulty in serving attorneys not located in New York. The Court of Appeals noted in the Schoenefeld decision that New York has "an interest in ensuring that personal service can be accomplished on nonresident attorneys admitted to practice here." The Court then considered current law, citing provisions of the CPLR, including 2103(b), and said that there are "currently several means of service upon a nonresident attorney, including mail, overnight delivery, fax and (where permitted) email...." It also noted that Court of Appeals Rule 520.13(a), dealing with admissions to the Bar, requires nonresident attorneys to designate the clerk of an Appellate Division as their agent for service for actions related to legal services offered within the state. It concluded, "the legislature always remains free to take any additional action deemed necessary." While the Court in Schoenefled was concerned with service on an out-of- state attorney in a pending action, which is governed by CPLR 2103(b), the law regarding service on an out-of-service party, including an attorney named as a party, has changed significantly since 1909. Until the mid-1940s, there was a significant challenge to obtaining personal jurisdiction over an attorney who resided and maintained an office out of state who performed legal services within the state. Since the advent of "Long Arm Jurisdiction," and the enactment of CPLR 302(a), obtaining jurisdiction over such an attorney is no longer problematic. With modern day mechanisms for serving papers on attorneys not located in the state and CPLR 302(a) providing a jurisdictional basis for service outside the state, there is no reason to require a brick and mortar office as speci- fied in section 470. The concerns that led to the adoption of this section more than a century ago no longer exists, and the current statu- tory prohibition serves no purpose in today's global environment. Its repeal would not create any significant difficulties arising from the lack of an attorney's physical office within the state.   LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2020: A10425 Referred to Judiciary/S5708 Referred to Judiciary 2021: A5895 Referred to Judiciary/S700 Referred to Judiciary 2023: A2218 Vetoed / S3261 Vetoed   FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.   EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately.
Go to top

A03849 Text:



 
                STATE OF NEW YORK
        ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                          3849
 
                               2025-2026 Regular Sessions
 
                   IN ASSEMBLY
 
                                    January 30, 2025
                                       ___________
 
        Introduced by M. of A. WEPRIN, PAULIN, DINOWITZ, SAYEGH -- read once and
          referred to the Committee on Judiciary
 
        AN  ACT to repeal section 470 of the judiciary law, relating to allowing
          attorneys having offices in the state to reside in an adjoining state
 
          The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and  Assem-
        bly, do enact as follows:
 
     1    Section 1. Section 470 of the judiciary law is REPEALED.
     2    § 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                              [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                                   LBD06098-01-5
Go to top