An Albany judge has annulled a state Department of Agriculture and Markets decision that found that New York City improperly banned the sale of foie gras produced in Sullivan County.
Agriculture commissioner Richard A. Ball had ruled that the city had no jurisdiction over farms outside of the city when it banned the fatty pâté.
But in challenging the city’s jurisdiction, Albany Supreme Court Justice Richard M. Platkin ruled on Aug. 4, the state had created the false appearance that it had conducted a comprehensive review of the New York City law.
In 2019, New York enacted Local Law 202 to stop restaurants and retailers from selling or serving foie gras and other force-fed products in the city.
The law was aimed at stopping the gavage feeding method, the practice as described in the court opinion of inserting a pipe down the esophagus of a male goose or duck as young as 8 to 10 weeks old and forcing two to four pounds of grain and fat down the bird’s throat two to three times a day.
The technique produces a liver ten times the size of a non-force-fed bird, according to court records, resulting in the culinary delicacy known as foie gras.
The city’s position is that force feeding birds is cruel and inhumane.
La Belle Farms Inc. and Hudson Valley Foie Gras, both of Ferndale, asked the agriculture commissioner to weigh in under a state law that limits the power of local governments to impinge on farm operations in county-designated agricultural districts.
Commissioner Ball concluded in August 2020 and December 2022 opinions that the city law violated the state law.
Ball reasoned that the city’s intent was to induce the farms to abandon their feeding practices or force them out of business.
What is unusual, he stated in his final opinion, “is the city’s effort to use its police powers and business regulatory authority to bar the sale of a lawfully produced farm product — not for reasons of the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens — but to change animal husbandry practices occurring on farms outside its jurisdiction to which it objects.”
The city petitioned Albany Supreme Court to annul the decision as arbitrary and capricious.
The city law did not directly restrict the farms, according to the petition. Sullivan County farms were free to continue producing foie gras by the force-fed method. The law merely restricted sales in the city.
During oral arguments on July 14,  judge Platkin zeroed in on a question: Why, he asked, was the entire legislative history of Local Law 202 not included in the case record, given the divergent understandings of the law?
The state’s “reliance on legislative history is woven throughout their determination that Local Law 202 unreasonable restricts  or regulates farm operations,” the judge noted, but the state disclosed during oral arguments that it had not reviewed most of the legislative history.
The state was obliged to conduct a meaningful review of the city law, he ruled, but instead Balls final determination was “based on a review of legislative history confined to two brief quotes culled from a voluminous legislative record.”
He ruled that Ball’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and he sent the matter back to the agriculture department for further proceedings.
