In re Di Brizzi

2 Citing briefs

  1. The People, Respondent,v.John Andujar, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed September 5, 2017

    23 an Attorney General’s investigation into organized crime conducted well after the war’s end. In re Di Brizzi, 303 N.Y. 206, 214 (1951). Even though there was “little doubt” that the Legislature first recognized the need for the statute because of a war emergency, because it utilized general terms in enacting the statute, and did not expressly or implicit- ly limit its operation to a time of war, the Court recognized that it could not impose such a limitation.

  2. Patrick Lynch,, et al., Respondents,v.The City of New York, et al., Appellants.

    Brief

    Filed May 8, 2014

    As this Court stated long ago: A general law may, and frequently does, originate in some particular case or class of cases which is in the mind of the legislature at the time, but, so long as it is expressed in general language, the courts cannot, in the 35 absence of express restrictions, limit its application to those cases, but must apply it to all cases that come within its terms and its general purpose and policy. Matter of DiBrizzi (Proskauer), 303 N.Y. 206, 214 (1951) (quoting People ex rel. McClelland v. Roberts, 148 N.Y. 360, 368 (1896).