Court Opinion

ID: 9525209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:00:49.186641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:22.115042
License: Public Domain

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 Without doubt, the Legislature may prohibit and punish the sale of certain outdated or stale products.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:
*571“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no misrepresentation and committed no deceptive act by merely displaying for sale items that were plainly marked as outdated.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.1 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 *572be 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,2 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.