Other courts have stated that the purpose of Article 26 is to "inform the carrier adequately of the nature of the damages claimed." See Highlands Ins. v. Trinidad Tobago (BWIA Intern.), supra note 1 at 540, and Amazon Coffee Co. v. Trans World Airlines, 111 A.D.2d 776, 490 N.Y.S.2d 523, 524 [2 Dept. 1985]. For the reasons stated earlier in Part II, we decline to adopt this view of the notice requirement. Pan American asserts a contrary view and argues that Continental Airlines' notation does not satisfy the requirements of Article 26.

We particularly disapprove of the failure of plaintiff's attorney to cite adverse authority. The failure is especially glaring in this case since plaintiff's attorney represented the losing appellant in Bettan (supra), a Second Department case issued a matter of weeks before plaintiff's reply brief on the instant appeal was submitted, which precisely addresses five out of six of plaintiff's causes of action as well as the issue of class certification (see Amazon Coffee Co. v. Trans World Airlines, 111 A.D.2d 776, 778) and, unless and until overruled or disagreed with by this Court, is "controlling" authority that plaintiff's attorney was obligated to bring to the attention of this Court (see Matter of Cicio v. City of New York, 98 A.D.2d 38; Merl v. Merl, 128 A.D.2d 685; see also Mtn. View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms, 102 A.D.2d 663, 664-665). We have considered plaintiff's other contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be completely without merit.

The Supreme Court properly vacated as excessive that portion of the respondent's determination which ordered forfeiture of the petitioner's $1,000 compliance bond (see, Matter of Idlewild Rest. Tavern v State Liq. Auth., 146 A.D.2d 629; Matter of MNDN Rest. v Gazzara, 128 A.D.2d 781, 782; Matter of Seminaro v State Liq. Auth., 51 A.D.2d 680; cf., Matter of Muidallap Corp. v State Liq. Auth., 143 A.D.2d 9). In affirming the order and judgment appealed from, we remind counsel for the appellants of his affirmative obligation to advise the court of authorities adverse to his position (see, Amazon Coffee Co. v Trans World Airlines, 111 A.D.2d 776, 778; Matter of Cicio v City of New York, 98 A.D.2d 38). Although counsel for the appellants represented the appellant State Liquor Authority in connection with a recent prior appeal involving precisely the same issue — in which this court reduced the penalty imposed in the same manner as did the Supreme Court in the matter at bar (see, Matter of MNDN Rest. v Gazzara, supra) — counsel has nevertheless failed to apprise the court of this previously decided precedent in his brief. Since counsel also represented the State Liquor Authority with regard to the MNDN case, there can be no excuse for the failure to bring the holding to the court's attention (cf., Amazon Coffee Co. v Trans World Airlines, supra).