Opinion
January 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Ira Gammerman, J.].
Respondent's determination is supported by substantial evidence. The ads are deceptive because the true prices are not the "clear import" of the ads (see, Matter of Dubrowsky v Ambach, 88 A.D.2d 1004, 1005). The penalty is not so disproportionate as to shock one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Keenan v. New York State Liq. Auth., 205 A.D.2d 359).
We decline to consider arguments made for the first time in petitioner's reply brief (see, State Farm Fire Cas. Co. v LiMauro, 103 A.D.2d 514, 521-522, affd 65 N.Y.2d 369). Were we to consider these arguments, we would find them without merit.
We have considered the petitioner's remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.