FERNDALE — Sergio Saravia, president of La Belle Farms, says his Sullivan County duck farm will continue its legal fight against New York City’s foie gras ban after a recent appellate court ruling sided with the city and reversed the state’s earlier decision that had blocked the ban.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, ruled that the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets misapplied state law when it blocked New York City’s 2019 ban on foie gras sales.

The proposed law would ban the sale of “force-fed poultry products” from restaurants and stores in New York City, with establishments facing a proposed $500 to $2,000 fine for each violation. Animal rights advocates say the practice used to produce foie gras is inhumane, arguing that ducks are force-fed in a way that causes harm before they are slaughtered.

La Belle Farms is a family-run duck farm on 40 acres in Sullivan County. Founded by the Saravia family in 1999, the farm is one of the few in the country producing foie gras and premium duck meat, employing hundreds of workers.

Together, La Belle Farms and Hudson Valley Foie Gras employ hundreds of workers and say that they contribute to a larger agricultural ecosystem in Sullivan County. From feed suppliers and farming equipment providers to transportation, maintenance and local services.

Foie gras, French for “fat liver,” is produced by feeding ducks in a way that enlarges the liver.

Saravia said modern practices at La Belle and Hudson Valley Foie Gras use a smaller, flexible rubber tube to deliver a liquid feed, replacing older metal feeding tubes used decades ago, which he said has improved the process and animal care.

Saravia said the court’s decision will have a big impact on the farm and that they plan to continue appealing the case.

“It’s not a matter of choice for us, it’s existence,” Saravia said. “We have families that I’ve been working with in this farm for decades. You don’t turn your back on that.”

Saravia said La Belle can still sell foie gras in New York City for now because a separate injunction remains in place while the litigation continues. He said the farms plan to exhaust every available legal option.

The dispute centers on whether New York City can ban the sale of a product tied to a farming practice that takes place outside city limits. Saravia said he believes the city’s actions extend beyond its jurisdiction and affect agricultural activity in Sullivan County.

“There are no ducks in New York City,” he said. “They went beyond their jurisdiction by doing what they did.”

He said the impact would extend beyond the farms themselves to workers, families and the many local businesses that depend on their operations. He described a potential domino effect across Sullivan County, where scaling back or shutting down operations would not only affect jobs but also vendors that provide feed, farming equipment, fuel and other services.

“Between La Belle and Hudson Valley, you’re talking about close to 700 workers,” Saravia said. “Economically, Sullivan County’s economy is huge for farming as a whole, and this is detrimental.”

Saravia said the farm has invited officials and others to observe its practices. He said La Belle has long invited officials and others to visit the farm and see its practices firsthand, adding that the city never took the time to do so.

“We’re not this cruel and inhumane people,” he said. “New York City never took the time to come here and see what we truly are.”

Saravia said the ruling could set a broader precedent for farms across the state and raise concerns about how local laws can impact agricultural industries located elsewhere.

“We’re not going to give up because we’re fighting for almost every farmer now,” he said.

Hudson Valley Foie Gras manager Marcus Henley added that it becomes difficult for farms when municipalities adopt different restrictions on products that are otherwise legal under state law. The farm’s attorney also called the ruling unprecedented, warning it could leave farms across New York vulnerable to similar local sales bans.

According to court documents, the appellate decision found that the state agency overreached in blocking the city’s law, clearing the way for further legal review as the case heads toward the Court of Appeals. The judges determined that the city’s law regulates sales within New York City rather than farming practices themselves, meaning any impact on upstate farms would be indirect and financial, not a direct restriction on agricultural operations.