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.

In the New York Times

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 claims went to trial, on March 4, 1936, in the Supreme Court, not the Municipal Court. Seven cases were decided at the trial, with the jury awarding a total of $1,200 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 last a Black newspaper). 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 $2,000 in a brief story in the Pittsburgh Courier, while a similarly brief Afro-American story did not mention a total.

The largest award, to Irving Stekin, did feature 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 Stekin'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. Stekin'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 the 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 the Afro-American saying Stekin has claimed a total of $3,000 for his two stores and the New York Times and New York Herald Tribune a total of $2,000. 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 Stekin if the award was $550 of $2,000 or 23% if it was $700 of $3,000, rather than 70% for Feinstein and 82% for Rosenberg. Newspaper stories in July 1935 had reported Stekin claimed $2,068 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 that address was, with Anthony Avitable as the owner. If that was the business referred to in the story, the damages claimed were $537. All the claims mentioned in the press total $18,566, leaving $1,444 for the claims by Schwartz and Romanoff. Given the sums claimed by D'Agostino, Saloway, and Avitable, the reported claims fit with the total claimed in the cases at trial being $20,000. It is striking that none of the stories mentioned the $14,000 claim for damages to George's Lunch resulting in an award of less than the $700–$550 that Stekin received. 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. Troy 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 notwithstanding the fact that two other trials had occurred. In continuing to assert the city's position that a riot had not taken place, 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 latter 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 run up against 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 Feinstein's earlier trial, 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 referred 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, city officials may have decided to settle the other claims.

Nor is there any evidence that efforts were made to amend 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 the War Emergency Act. As a result, the law was not in effect when racial disorder broke out in Harlem in 1943. Notwithstanding the suspension, the New York Times reported 800 claims were filed against the city for $4 million of damages, evidence that the litigation in 1935 had increased awareness of the statute and likely had resulted in additional awards of damages beyond those in the three trials. Barney Rosenstein was again among the attorneys involved in those actions, and in trying to find a way around the suspension. He took a claim to the Appeals court to test the city's liability; the judges ruled in 1945 that the Act prevented the award of damages, as the New York Supreme Court had a year earlier. City officials had been confident of that outcome, historian Dominic Capeci has shown. The suspension was not lifted at the end of the war, but instead incorporated into the New York State Defense Emergency Act of 1951 that provided for civil defense administration, and renewed into the 1970s. Consequently, the city was also protected from liability for damage from the racial disorder in Harlem in 1964. Nonetheless, at least thirty-eight claims were again filed, the New York Amsterdam News reported, despite recognition that the statute was suspended. The city's press did not report the fate of those claims, nor did the one historical study of the 1964 racial disorder that mentioned them, Christoper Hayes' The Harlem Uprising.
Irving Stekin's grocery store looted When someone on Lenox Avenue threw "the first stone" at the windows of Irving Stekin's grocery store at 371 Lenox Avenue, he called police, according to the New York Sun report of his suit against the city. There was no mention in the newspaper stories of when that stone was thrown, but it was likely sometime soon after 11:00 PM, when Louis Levy left his dry goods store across the street at 374 Lenox Avenue, seemingly unconcerned about crowds on the street, and perhaps around 11:30 PM, when Benjamin Zelvin closed his jewelry store at 372 Lenox Avenue, next to Levy's business, and, like Stekin, called police to protect it from attack. Stekin 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 was no mention of what Stekin 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. Stekin 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. Michael D'Agostino's business at 361 Lenox Avenue was looted, while the South Harlem Rotisserie at 365 Lenox Avenue and the laundry at 367 Lenox Avenue had windows broken. Across the street, Levy and Zelvin's businesses at 372 and 374 Lenox Avenue were also looted. 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 stationery store as the New York Sun and New York World-Telegram had labeled Stekin's business. Both windows and the door have been blocked 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 the thirty-six-year old Russian-born Stekin, facing the crowd walking along the sidewalk. The only details of the damage to Stekin's store was in newspaper stories about the civil suits against the city brought by white merchants. Stekin was not part of the group of twenty men who brought the first suits, but was mentioned in stories published at the end of July, by which time 106 merchants had filed suits. He appeared as an example because of the large sum of damages he sought, $2,068, as a result of which, the New York Sun reported, Stekin "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 when he registered for the draft in 1942. In 1930, the federal census records that Stekin 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. All three men joined Stekin in suing the city, William Gindin, Jacob Saloway, and Michael D'Agostino. There was no evidence of whether Stekin 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, Stekin'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 $1,200. Stekin 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 stationery store and the business at 363 Lenox Avenue that he had valued at more than $2,000, 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 was no evidence that happened. Consistent with the New York Sun report that Stekin 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 appeared to have gone out of business, as the Tax Department photograph taken between 1939 and 1941 shows a grocery store at 371 Lenox Avenue.
Irving Stekin's store looted Irving Stekin's store at 363 Lenox Avenue was looted during the disorder. The thirty-six-year-old Russian-born Stekin also owned a grocery store in the same block, at 371 Lenox Avenue; it too was looted. He was in that second store when a stone was thrown through its window, and waited two hours for police to come to protect the business. Stekin may have remained there after officers arrived as he later reported that they could not stop the damage and looting. Alternatively, he could have observed events from an apartment above the store at 363 Lenox Avenue; he had lived in the building in 1930, the federal census recorded.

Attacks on 363 Lenox Avenue likely began around 11:00 PM or 11:30 PM. This block saw extensive attacks on white businesses during the disorder. Michael D'Agostino's business at 361 Lenox Avenue was looted, while the South Harlem Rotisserie at 365 Lenox Avenue and the laundry at 367 Lenox Avenue had windows broken. Across the street, businesses at 372 and 374 Lenox Avenue were also looted.

Stekin's business at 363 Lenox Avenue may have been a stationery store. The New York Sun and New York World-Telegram mistakenly identified his store at 371 Lenox Avenue as a stationery 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 stationery store and a delicatessan. In 1930, the federal census recorded that the apartments in 363 Lenox Avenue were anomalous in this area of Harlem at that time in being home to only white residents. In addition to Stekin, the six other households included three headed by men who owned stores in Harlem later looted during the disorder: William Gindin, Jacob Saloway, and Michael D'Agostino. All three men joined Stekin in suing the city for damages. While Gindin at least had relocated to another building on Lenox Avenue by the time of the disorder, Stekin may still have lived at 363 Lenox Avenue in 1935 (he resided somewhere other than the address on 128th Street that was recorded as his home in the 1940 census).

The looting of 363 Lenox Avenue was not mentioned in the newspaper stories about business owners suing the city published at the end of July, in which Stekin 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, Stekin'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 Stekin 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.

Stekin had sought $2,068 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 did not appear to have applied to the store at 363 Lenox Avenue. When Stekin registered for the draft in 1942 he still owned and worked at that business, which his wife Lillian told an enumerator for the 1940 census was a grocery store (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. Certainly, by the time the Tax Department photograph of the building was taken the sign on the business read 'Irving's Cut Rate Groceries." By the time of the 1940 census he had moved to the edge of Harlem; the enumerator recorded him living at 400 West 128th Street, on the west side of St. Nicholas Park. By 1942 Stekin had moved further from the neighborhood, to 621 West 169th Street in Washington Heights.
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 Stekin. 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.
Michael D'Agostino's store looted The store at 361 Lenox Avenue owned by forty-three-year-old Italian immigrant Michael D'Agostino 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 Stekin. The South Harlem Rotisserie at 365 Lenox Avenue and the laundry at 367 Lenox Avenue had windows broken. Those attacks likely began around 11:30 PM.

In 1930, a federal census enumerator recorded that D'Agostino lived at 363 Lenox Avenue, a building anomalous in this area of Harlem at that time 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, William Gindin, Jacob Saloway, and Irving Stekin. All three men joined D'Agostino in claiming damages from the city. There was no evidence of whether D'Agostino still lived at the address 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.