Summary
In Re Cucina Mary Ann, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 150 A.D.2d 450, 451 (2d Dep't 1989); In Re Cicio v. City of New York, 98 A.D.2d 38, 40 (2d Dep't 1983).
Summary of this case from Yellow Book of N Y v. DimiliaOpinion
May 8, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
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). Brown, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.