Case Name: In the Matter of Food Parade, Inc., Doing Business as Greenfield Shoprite, Respondent, v. Office of Consumer Affairs of County of Nassau et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 7 N.Y.3d 568
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Food Parade, Inc., Doing Business as Greenfield Shoprite, Respondent, v Office of Consumer Affairs of County of Nassau et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 568–578

Head Matter:
[859 NE2d 473, 825 NYS2d 667]
In the Matter of Food Parade, Inc., Doing Business as Greenfield Shoprite, Respondent, v Office of Consumer Affairs of County of Nassau et al., Appellants.
Argued September 14, 2006;
decided October 24, 2006
POINTS OF COUNSEL
Loma B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineóla (Peter J. Clines of counsel), for appellants.
I. The Appellate Division decision ignores controlling principles of consumer protection law and leaves consumers vulnerable to the deceptive sale of expired goods. (Matter of Pathmark Stores v Office of Consumer Affairs of County of Nassau, 1 AD3d 520; Reusens v Gerard, 160 App Div 625, affd sub nom. de Ridder v Gerard, 221 NY 665; FTC v Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 US 374; FTC v Algoma Lumber Co., 291 US 67; Vallery v Bermuda Star Line, 141 Misc 2d 395; People v Volkswagen of Am., 47 AD2d 868; Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268; McDonald v North Shore Yacht Sales, 134 Misc 2d 910; 23 Realty Assoc. v Teigman, 213 AD2d 306; Maldonado v Collectibles Intl., Inc., 969 F Supp 7.) II. The decision upsets the traditional deference accorded to administrative determinations by this Court and other judicial departments. (Matter of 172 E. 122 St. Tenants Assn. v Schwarz, 73 NY2d 340; Seittelman v Sabol, 91 NY2d 618; Matter of Elcor Health Servs. v Novello, 100 NY2d 273; Matter of Marzec v DeBuono, 95 NY2d 262; Matter of American Tel. & Tel. Co. v State Tax Commn., 61 NY2d 393; NLRB v Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 US 111; Matter of Nelson v Roberts, 304 AD2d 20; Matter of Dunn Appraisal Co. v Melton, 79 AD2d 707; Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434; Matter of Louis Harris & Assoc. v deLeon, 84 NY2d 698.)
Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (.Merril S. Biscone, Evan H. Krinick and Michael P. Versichelli of counsel), for respondent.
I. The Supreme Court’s order should be affirmed in light of the fact that the determination of the Office of Consumer Affairs was arbitrary, capricious, irrational and without jurisdiction. (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756; Matter of Maryhaven Ctr. of Hope v Wing, 251 AD2d 413, 92 NY2d 889; Matter of Valle v Buscemi, 233 AD2d 334; Matter of 4M Holding Co. v Town Bd. of Town of Islip, 185 AD2d 317, 81 NY2d 1053; Matter of VR Equities v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 118 AD2d 459; Robin v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 30 NY2d 347; Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 74 NY2d 423; Albany Area Bldrs. Assn. v Town of Guilderland, 74 NY2d 372; Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v Town of Red Hook, 60 NY2d 99.) II. The instant proceeding was not premature. (Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52; Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 87 NY2d 136; Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 301 AD2d 845; Matter of Parkway Hosp. v Axelrod, 178 AD2d 644, 80 NY2d 921; Matter of Good Samaritan Hosp. v Axelrod, 150 AD2d 775, 75 NY2d 703; Bankers Trust Corp. v New York City Dept. of Fin., 301 AD2d 321, 99 NY2d 507.)
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Daniel Smirlock, Laura Etlinger, Jane M. Azia and Thomas G. Conway of counsel), amicus curiae.
I. Deceptive practices laws are properly construed to include the sale of expired products. (Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v Philip Morris USA Inc., 3 NY3d 200; Karlin v IVF Am., 93 NY2d 282; Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314; New York v Feldman, 210 F Supp 2d 294; Maldonado v Collectibles Intl., Inc., 969 F Supp 7; Matter of State of New York v Maiorano, 189 AD2d 766; Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 94 NY2d 330; Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43; Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20; People v Apple Health & Sports Clubs, 206 AD2d 266, 84 NY2d 1004.) II. General Business Law §§ 820 and 821 do not preempt the County of Nassau’s efforts to regulate the sale of expired over-the-counter drugs. (Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v County of Suffolk, 71 NY2d 91; People v De Jesus, 54 NY2d 465; Hertz Corp. v City of New York, 80 NY2d 565; New York State Club Assn. v City of New York, 69 NY2d 211; Myerson v Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co., 33 NY2d 250; People v Lewis, 295 NY 42; People v Judiz, 38 NY2d 529.)

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Rosenblatt, J.
Many consumer goods bear expiration dates, as required by law. In the case before us, a supermarket displayed a number of products bearing expired dates. We must decide whether this is a deceptive trade practice within the meaning of the Nassau County Administrative Code. We hold that offering such products for sale is not deceptive unless the retailer alters or disguises the expiration dates. Without doubt, the Legislature may prohibit and punish the sale of certain outdated or stale products. We cannot, however, fit such sales or displays into the code's "deceptive trade practice" proscription.
Local Law No. 2-1970 of the County of Nassau, adding Nassau County Administrative Code, chapter XXI, title D, § 21-10.2 (the Act), reads as follows, in pertinent part:
"1. Unfair Trade Practices Prohibited . . .
"(a) . . . No person shall engage in any deceptive or unconscionable trade practice in the sale . or in the offering for sale . of any consumer goods . . .
"2. Definitions . . .
"b. 'Deceptive trade practice.' Any false . or misleading oral or written statement, visual description or other representation of any kind, which has the capacity, tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers and is made in connection with the sale . . . or . . . the offering for sale . of consumer goods . [Deceptive trade practices include but are not limited to:
"(1) representations that: . . .
"(d) goods or services are of [a] particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model, if they are of another."
After an investigation, the Nassau County Office of Consumer Affairs cited petitioner (Shoprite) for displaying 144 products with expired manufacturers' dates. The products included vitamins, baby formula, nasal decongestant and tanning oil. Following an administrative hearing, the agency fined Shoprite $3,600.
Shoprite brought a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the agency's determination. Supreme Court concluded that the agency acted without a sound basis in reason and that its determination lacked a reasonable basis in law. The court held that Shoprite made no misrepresentation and committed no deceptive act by merely displaying for sale items that were plainly marked as outdated. The court annulled the agency's determination. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that Shoprite did not misrepresent the quality of the goods, and noting that each item was marked by the manufacturer with an unaltered and unconcealed expiration date. We now affirm.
The agency argues that in displaying expired products for sale, the supermarket misled consumers by making an "implied representation" that the items were unexpired. That could well be true if the items were undated. Here, however, the dates were expressly represented, and a contrary conclusion as to the age of the items cannot be drawn by implication, so as to form the basis for a penalty. In short, the agency cannot ascribe to Shoprite an implied representation at odds with what undisputedly appears in writing.
General Business Law § 820 is instructive. Its enactment followed a report by the Attorney General, whose office conducted an investigation to determine whether manufacturers and retailers of over-the-counter drugs were complying with federal and state expiration requirements. The investigation uncovered numerous instances in which over-the-counter drugs were openly outdated and others in which retailers hid the dates by covering them with price labels.
The state statute does two things. First, section 820 (1) provides that it is unlawful for any retailer "to knowingly sell or offer for sale, any drug sold over-the-counter without the need of a prescription, later than the date, if any, marked upon the label as indicative of the date beyond which the contents cannot be expected beyond reasonable doubt to be safe and effective." The enactment does not characterize the practice as deceptive, and the statute does not require that it be so. The law simply bans such sales or offerings.
Second, section 820 (2) deals with deception by making it an unlawful practice for any retailer "to knowingly alter, mutilate, destroy, obliterate or remove by means of a price sticker or otherwise the whole or any part of the expiration date displayed on the label or packaging of any over-the-counter drug." Thus, the statute covers both the sale (or offer) of openly outdated drugs and the misleading or deceptive practice of concealing dates. By contrast, the Nassau County legislation before us prohibits only misleading and deceptive practices.
Here, there is no claim that the dates were in any way obscured, nor does the Nassau County Act prohibit the sale of expired over-the-counter drugs or any other products. It does prohibit misleading or deceptive sales or displays, but we are unable to conclude that the sale or display of an item plainly (out)dated is deceptive or misleading.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
. The Appellate Division appears to have rested its holding, in part, on grounds of due process and vagueness. Our affirmance is based exclusively on the plain language of the Act.
. Expiration Dating of Over-The-Counter Drugs in New York, Survey Report by Attorney General Robert Abrams, January 1985.