This page was created by Anonymous.

This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Harlem in Disorder: A Spatial History of How Racial Violence Changed in 1935

"7 Win Harlem Riot Suits," New York Times, March 5, 1936, 14.

This page has tags:

Contents of this tag:

This page is referenced by:

In the Supreme court on March 4, 1936 (7) Four months elapsed after Judge Shalleck upheld the verdict awarding damages to William Feinstein before any further damage claims went to trial, in the Supreme Court, not the Municipal Court, on March 4, 1936. Seven cases were decided at the trial, with the jury awarding a total of $1200 in damages.The Supreme Court heard larger claims, but as only two of the seven business owners filed claims larger than those of Feinstein and Rosenberg tried in the Municipal Court, it appears these cases were tried in that court because they were grouped together. What the seven plaintiffs had in common was their attorney: Barney Rosenstein, the lawyer at the center of newspaper stories about filing claims in April and July 1935. He was mentioned in stories in the New York Post, New York Amsterdam News, and California Eagle. The number of cases and total awards were reported in stories in New York Times, New York Post, New York Herald Tribune, Daily News, and New York Amsterdam News, and beyond the city, in the Chicago Tribune, and California Eagle. The total was mistakenly reported as $2000 in a brief story in the Pittsburgh Courier, while a similarly brief Afro-American story did not mention a total. The appearance of this trial in those Black newspapers was in contrast with the absence of stories about the previous legal proceedings in the Black Press other than the New York Amsterdam News.

The largest award, to Irving Stetkin, did appear in the stories in the Pittsburgh Courier and Afro-American, and in the New York Times, New York Post, New York Herald Tribune and New York Amsterdam News. That Stetkin's claim involved damage to two stores was mentioned in all those stories other than the Pittsburgh Courier. The jury awarded him $550 according to the New York Times and New York Herald Tribune, $700 according to the New York Post and New York Amsterdam News, and $500 according to the Pittsburgh Courier. Stetkin's award was contrasted with the smallest award in some of those stories, which was to Michael D'Agostino, of $70 for two stores according to the New York Times and New York Herald Tribune, and of $25 for one store according to New York Post and New York Amsterdam News.

What the store owners had claimed was mentioned only in the New York Times and New York Herald Tribune, as $20,000 in total, with Afro-American saying Stetkin has claimed a total of $3000 for his two stores and the New York Times and New York Herald Tribune a total of $2000. If the total was accurate, the awards were for a significantly lower proportion of the claims than in the verdicts against Feinstein and Rosenberg: only 6% in total and 27.5% for Stetkin if award was $550 of $2000 or 23% if it was $700 of $3000, rather than 70% for Feinstein and 82% for Rosenberg. Newspaper stories in July 1935 had reported Stetkin claimed $2068 for a single store, so the larger sum may be the most accurate. Newspaper stories in April 1935 had reported D'Agostino claimed damages of $146.75 for one store and $196.25 for another, a total of $343. An award of $70 for the two stores amounted to 20% of those claims. All seven storeowners were identified in the New York Herald Tribune, but the story gave no information on either the claims or awards of the other five plaintiffs. Three are among those identified in stories in April 1935. Saloway's claim was $676 and the claim for George's lunch, owned by George Chronis, was $14,000. While Berenson was not mentioned in those stories, the business at [address] was, with Avitable as the owner. If that was business referred to in the story, the damages claimed amount to $537. All the claims mentioned in the press total $18,566, leaving $1444 for the claims by Schwartz and Romanoff. Given the sums claimed by D'Agostino, Saloway and Avitable, that information would fit with the total claimed in the cases at trial being $20,000. If the dramatically reduced proportion of the claims the jury awarded is taken into account, then the trial does not seem to be the straightforward loss for the city that the press reported it to be. Certainly, further awards at those levels would not impose the burden on the city predicted after the earlier trials.

A different Corporation Counsel lawyer defended the city in this trial, Matthew Troy rather than Aaron Arnold. He also appears to have made a different argument than Arnold, which he supported with testimony from police witnesses who had not been called in the previous trials. That his approach was new would fit with the description of the trial as a "test case" in the Daily News, Chicago Tribune, and Afro-American. In continuing to assert the city's position that a riot had not occurred, Troy argued “a riot is a concerted uprising and the disorders in Harlem did not answer that description,” according to the New York Post. The New York Amsterdam News and California Eagle also reported similar phrases were part of the city's defense, "no concerted movement of the mob" in the later story and "no concentrated uprising" in the former story. The city's assertion that there had not been a riot appeared without any details of the basis of the claim in the New York Times, and Chicago Tribune. No mention was made of the arguments in the New York Herald Tribune, Daily News, Afro-American and Pittsburgh Courier. Nor did any story refer to Judge Shalleck's arguments for dismissing the city's claim in his decision in the Feinstein case.

Troy had First Deputy Police Commissioner Harold Fowler, Inspector John Seery and Deputy Inspector John Di Martini testify in support of the city's defense, according to the New York Post, New York Amsterdam News and California Eagle. Their evidence did not persuade the jury, who likely held to their own understanding of a riot. Efforts to convince them that riot had a different meaning in civil court than criminal court would have been countered by the use of the label riot to describe events in Harlem in the press.

As in the previous trials, the Corporation Counsel said that the city would appeal, according to the New York Times and Afro-American, and "probably appeal" according to the New York Herald Tribune. Most of the damage claims still had to be resolved at this time. While the New York Post and New York Amsterdam News referred to pending suits totaling $1 million, as had stories about [other trials], the New York Times, New York Herald Tribune and Chicago Tribune mentioned fifteen "similar" cases awaiting trial in the Supreme Court. The later story attributed that information to Rosenstein, which suggests it might refer to plaintiffs that he represented. Twenty store owners had appeared on the list he circulated to the press in April 1935.

There is no evidence, however, that any further claims went to trial or that the city appealed the verdicts in this trial. Given that this was the city's third loss at trial, which both New York Post and New York Herald Tribune noted, and that the jury awarded relatively small sums, they may have decided to settle the other claims.

Nor is there any evidence that efforts were made to change the General Municipal Law to reduce or remove the city's liability for riot damage. However, in 1942, that section of the statute was suspended as part of.... As a result, the law was not in effect when racial disorder broke out in Harlem in ?, 1943. Notwithstanding the suspension, several lawyers did attempt to file claims, including again Barney Rosenstein. Outcome + several appeals making arguments about the scope of the suspension? None of those arguments succeeded. The suspension was not lifted at the end of the war, but instead incorporated into civil defense law, and renewed into the 1960s. Consequently, the city was protected from liability from the racial disorder in Harlem in 1964. [lawyers again unsiccessfully tested the suspension]

The 1943 disorder also raised a new legal issue in relation to riot damages as a result of extensive losses suffered by Black residents who had items in looted pawnshops. While insurance compensated the pawnshop owners, the Black property owners received nothing. Legal changes promoted.
Irving Stetkin's grocery store looted When someone on Lenox Avenue threw "the first stone" at the windows of Irving Stetkin's grocery store at 371 Lenox Avenue, he called police, according to the New York Sun report of his suit against the city. There is no mention in the newspaper stories that report Stekin's account of when that stone was thrown, but crowds appear to have been on the avenue by sometime after 10.30 PM. He waited two hours before a police car containing two officers arrived in response to his call, a detail reported in the New York Sun, New York Post and New York World-Telegram. There is no mention of what Stetkin did in the interim; but he could have done little to prevent people damaging and looting his store given the size of the crowds, so most likely retreated to the rear rooms to avoid injury. When they arrived, the police officers fared no better. Stetkin told the city Comptroller that "The police didn't do anything. They couldn't do anything. The mob was too big for them," according to a report in the New York World-Telegram. He had joined other white merchants in suing the city for damages on the basis that police had not protected businesses, so he had an incentive to emphasize police failures. Nonetheless, the extent of the attacks on businesses and violence in this area, and the small number of arrests, most of which came several hours after crowds first arrived on the avenue, add weight to his complaint. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this store.

The Pathe newsreel included footage of 371 Lenox Avenue taken the day after the disorder that shows the sign identifying it as a "Cut Rate Grocery," as the New York Post reported, not a stationary store as the New York Sun and New York World-Telegram had labeled Stetkin's business. Both windows and the door have been block off with large planks of wood, and appeared to have been completely smashed. It is not possible to see the extent of damage within the store. A white man smoking a cigarette stands in front of the door, perhaps Stetkin, facing the crowd walking along the sidewalk. The only details of the damage to Stetkin's store was in newspaper stories about the civil suits against the city brought by white merchants. Stetkin is not part of the group of twenty men who brought the first suits, but is mentioned in stories published at the end of July, by which time 106 merchants had filed suits. He appears as an example because of the large damages he sought, $2068, as a result of which, the New York Sun reported, Stetkin "is not in business anymore." Or at least not at that location. He also sued for damages to a second unspecified business, at 363 Lenox Avenue, four buildings to the south of the grocery store, according to the New York Times, where he was still in business in 1942. In 1930, the federal census records that Stetkin had lived above the store at 363 Lenox Avenue, a building anomalous in this area of Harlem in being home to only white residents. The six other households included three headed by men who owned stores in Harlem later looted during the disorder who joined Stetkin in suing the city, William Gindin, Jacob Saloway and Michael D'Agostino. There is no evidence of whether Stetkin still lived there in 1935; Gindin at least had relocated to another building on Lenox Avenue by the time of the disorder.

After the city lost the civil case that went to trial to test the merchants' case, Stetkin's actions for damages were one of seven cases taken to the Supreme Court to determine the city's liability. The damages claimed in those cases totaled $20,000, according to a report in the New York Times; Justice Shientag awarded a total of only $1200. Stetkin received the largest award, although newspaper stories disagreed on the amount. The New York Times identified the award as $550 for damages to both the stationary store and the business at 363 Lenox Avenue that he had valued at more than $2000, while the New York Amsterdam News identified the award as $700. While the New York Times reported that the city would appeal the decisions, there is no evidence that happened. Consistent with the New York Sun report that Stetkin was no longer in business at 371 Lenox Avenue after the disorder, the MCCH business survey taken between June and December 1935 recorded a Black-owned "Stationery Store & Religious Supplies" business at that address. That store too appears to have gone out of business, as the Tax Department photograph taken between 1939 and 1941 shows a grocery store at 371 Lenox Avenue.
Michael D'Agostino's market looted Michael D'Agostino's food market at 348 Lenox Avenue was looted during the disorder. There are no details of those events other than the amount of the owner's claim for losses: $146.75. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this store. However, two unidentified men arrested for looting are both carrying full shopping bags labelled Rex Food Market, 348 Lenox Avenue in the photograph below published in the New York Evening Journal. Those bags suggest that two of the sixteen men arrested for looting unidentified locations had taken merchandise from D'Agostino's market. Two other businesses at the same address were also looted and appear among those whose owners made claims for losses, stores owned by Sam Apuzzo and Jack Stern. The business in the neighboring building to the south, Young's Hardware at 346 Lenox Avenue was also looted, although Young was not among those identified as suing for damages.
Embed from Getty Images
D'Agostino appeared twice in a list of the first twenty white business-owners who filed claims for damages published in the New York Sun and New York Amsterdam News, with a second business at 361 Lenox Avenue. In 1930, the federal census records that D'Agostino lived at 363 Lenox Avenue, a building anomalous in this area of Harlem in being home to only white residents. The six other households included three headed by men who owned stores in Harlem later looted during the disorder who joined D'Agostino in claiming damages from the city, William Gindin, Jacob Saloway and Irving Stetkin. There was no evidence of whether D'Agostino still lived there in 1935; Gindin at least had relocated to another building on Lenox Avenue by the time of the disorder. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. D'Agostino was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding. However, he was one of seven store owners in the case before the Supreme Court in March 1936, identified as having received the lowest award. The two newspaper stories on those decisions differed on the details of the award; the New York Amsterdam News reported D'Agostino received $24 for the losses he claimed at 348 Lenox Avenue, whereas the New York Times reported he received $70, for claims at "248-261 Lenox Avenue," likely a misrecording of 348 and 361 Lenox Avenue, for which he had claimed a total of $343 in losses.

The claim for $146.75 in losses was one of the smaller claims reported in the press, well below the median claim of $733. However, D'Agostino did appear to have been able to remain in business. The New York Times identified D'Agostino as a fruit dealer, so he was likely the owner of the white-owned food market at 348 Lenox Avenue identified in the MCCH business survey in the second half of 1935. The Tax Department photograph of the address in 1939-1941 also showed the Rex Food Market.
Irving Stetkin's store looted Irving Stetkin's store at 363 Lenox Avenue was looted during the disorder. Stetkin also owned a grocery store in the same block, at 371 Lenox Avenue, that was also looted. He was in that second store when a stone was thrown through its window, and seems likely to have fruitlessly waited there for police to protect the business. In 1930, the federal census records that Stetkin lived above the store at 363 Lenox Avenue, a building anomalous in this area of Harlem in then being home to only white residents. The six other households included three headed by men who owned stores in Harlem later looted during the disorder who joined Stetkin in suing the city, William Gindin, Jacob Saloway and Michael D'Agostino. There is no evidence of whether Stetkin still lived there in 1935; Gindin at least had relocated to another building on Lenox Avenue by the time of the disorder. Stekin's business at 363 Lenox Avenue may have been a stationary store. The New York Sun and New York World-Telegram mistakenly identified his store at 371 Lenox Avenue as a stationary store, perhaps as a result of confusing which of his two businesses operated at which address. The MCCH business survey found two white-owned businesses at 363 Lenox Avenue in the second half of 1935, a stationary store and a delicatessan.

The looting of 363 Lenox Avenue is not mentioned in the newspaper stories about business owners suing the city published at the end of July, in which Stetkin described the attack on his grocery store and the failure of police to protect his business. After the city lost the civil case that went to trial to test the merchants' case, Stetkin's actions for damages were one of seven cases taken to the Supreme Court to determine the city's liability. Stories on the case identify Stetkin because he received the largest award, for damages to both his stores, although newspaper stories disagreed on the amount. The New York Times identified the award as $550 for damages to both the grocery store and the business at 363 Lenox Avenue, while the New York Amsterdam News identified the award as $700. While the New York Times reported that the city would appeal the decisions, there is no evidence that happened. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this store.

Stetkin had sought $2068 for damage to the grocery store and an unspecified amount for 363 Lenox Avenue. The New York Sun reported he was "not in business anymore" in describing the damage to the grocery store; that statement does not appear to have applied to the store at 363 Lenox Avenue. When Stetkin registered for the draft in 1942 he still owned and worked at that store, identifying it as a grocery store in the 1940 federal census (which is what appears in the Tax Department photograph taken between 1939 and 1941). He may have changed the nature of that store after his grocery store at 371 Lenox Avenue went out of business. By 1940 he had moved to the edge of Harlem; the census enumerator found him living at 400 West 128th Street, on the west side of St Nicholas Park. By 1942 Stetkin had moved further from the neighborhood, to 621 West 169th Street in Washington Heights.
Michael D'Agostino's store looted Michael D'Agostino's store at 361 Lenox Avenue was looted during the disorder. There are no details of those events other than the amount of the owner's claim for losses: $196.25. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this store. The store next door at 363 Lenox Avenue was also looted, as was another further up the block at 371 Lenox Avenue, both owned by Irving Stetkin. In 1930, the federal census records that D'Agostino lived at 363 Lenox Avenue, a building anomalous in this area of Harlem in being home to only white residents. The six other households included three headed by men who owned stores in Harlem later looted during the disorder who joined Stetkin in claiming damages from the city, William Gindin, Jacob Saloway and Irving Stetkin. There was no evidence of whether D'Agostino still lived there in 1935; Gindin at least had relocated to another building on Lenox Avenue by the time of the disorder.

D'Agostino appeared twice in a list of the first twenty white business-owners suing the city for damages based on the failure of police to protect their stores published in the New York Sun and New York Amsterdam News, with a second business at 348 Lenox Avenue. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. D'Agostino was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding. However, he was one of seven store owners in the case before the Supreme Court in March 1936, identified as having received the lowest award. The two newspaper stories on those decisions differed on the details of the award; the New York Amsterdam News reported D'Agostino received $24 for the losses he claimed at 348 Lenox Avenue, whereas the New York Times reported he received $70, for claims at "248-261 Lenox Avenue," likely a misrecording of 348 and 361 Lenox Avenue, for which he had claimed a total of $343 in losses.

The claim for $196.25 in losses was one of the smaller claims reported in the press, well below the median claim of $733. However, it is not clear if D'Agostino was able to remain in business. The New York Times identified D'Agostino as a fruit dealer, and the MCCH business survey recorded a white-owned grocery store at 361 Lenox Avenue in the second half of 1935. The Tax Department photograph of the address in 1939-1941 did show a vegetable market at the address.