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

"Claim $38,000 Riot Damages," New York Sun, April 23, 1935 [clipping]

This page has tags:

Contents of this tag:

This page is referenced by:

William Feinstein's liquor store looted Around 11.00 PM, David Schmoockler, the manager of William Feinstein’s liquor store saw a crowd of about thirty people gather near Lenox Avenue and West 132nd Street, according to Justice Shalleck's summary of the testimony he gave in the Municipal Court. Located at 452 Lenox Avenue, the store was in the middle of the block between West 132nd St and West 133rd Street. On the other side of West 132nd Street, Herbert Canter, who owned the pharmacy at 419 Lenox Avenue, testified in another Municipal Court trial that he also saw the crowd, which he described as "a "mob" carrying bricks, stones and bottles, as well as canned goods march down the street shouting, "Down with the whites! Let's get what we can," and hurling missiles through the windows, according to the New York Herald Tribune. For the next hour, Schmoockler watched as the crowd "created disturbances, hurled various missiles, broke store windows, set fire to some stores, pillaged others, and in general damaged property of various merchants in the locality," Shalleck wrote. Canter also saw a fire at Anna Rosenberg's notion shop at 429 Lenox Avenue, which extended to the neighboring hardware store. At some point police arrived but could not control the crowd. Officers "discharged their revolvers in an attempt to disperse the crowd," according to Shalleck's summary, and sometimes "succeeded in driving the participants from one side of the street, but they would then rush to the other side and back again, all the while continuing their destructive acts." The New York Times story on the Municipal Court trial reported this testimony simply as Schmoockler having “seen rioting in the neighborhood” that scared him and a "Negro helper" not mentioned in the Shalleck's summary, omitting details about the crowd and its struggles with police.

By around midnight, the disorder and gunfire had become frightening enough to Schmoockler and the Black staff member that they "locked the doors, closed the [iron] gates" and left the store, according to Shalleck's summary. A later story in the New York Times that mentioned Shalleck's decision reported that the men left “when police began shooting about midnight” and omitted details of the lead-up to that decision. The Magistrate’s Court affidavit began with the store being closed without any mention of the context, and mistakenly had him leaving at 9:30 PM rather than midnight. What the manager should instead have done when faced with this disorder, lawyers defending the city implied in cross-examination reported by the New York Times, was move stock out of the windows and put it beyond the reach of looters, as Max Greenwald and Jack Sherloff did, and notify the mayor, sheriff or county of the attack on his property, an argument reported and dismissed by Justice Shalleck.

A crowd remained in the area after Schmoockler and his helper left. Around 1:15 AM, "a group of from thirty to forty persons smashed the windows" of Feinstein's store, pilfered bottles of whiskey and demolished the store front," according to the New York Herald Tribune report of testimony by "witnesses for Mr Feinstein" in the Municipal Court. Justice Shalleck and the New York Times mentioned the time of the attack, and the same details, although the newspaper story misattributed the testimony to Feinstein. It is not clear who the witnesses were; the store manager had left over an hour earlier, and police officers were unlikely to be testifying against the city. Both newspaper stories and Judge Shalleck's summary noted that police still had not controlled the crowd. Given that the store's iron gate had to be broken before the windows could be smashed, the attack would have taken more time and sustained, noisy violence than most, despite the number of people involved. Even with that opportunity to respond, police did not arrive until the crowd had largely finished looting the store, and made only one arrest. Around 1:20 AM, according to the Magistrate's Court affidavit, Officer Nathaniel Carter allegedly saw several men leaving the store carrying bottles. He arrested one of those men, Louis Cobb, a thirty-eight-year-old Black laborer, with one bottle of gin and two bottles of whiskey in his possession. Cobb lived on the next block, at 473 Lenox Avenue. His arrest was not mentioned in either the justice's decision or any of the newspaper stories about the attack on Feinstein's store. The damaged liquor store in a photograph published in the New York World-Telegram is almost certainly Feinstein's store. The caption mentions an iron grill that was torn down as well as smashed windows, and the storefront matched the Tax Department photograph.

Schmoockler put the total losses at around $1000 in the Magistrates Court affidavit. Feinstein later filed a claim for $627.40 in damages from the city, according to the Home News and New York American. He was not among the twenty business owners identified as the first to file claims identified by the New York Sun. Nonetheless, after the city opted to deny all the claims, Feinstein was the first of the 106 plaintiffs who filed claims after the disorder to go to trial, effectively making him the test case. As a result much of the newspaper stories on the trial focused on the legal basis for damages. No details of what happened to Feinstein’s store were included in stories in the Home News, New York American, New York Herald Tribune, and New York World-Telegram. The jury awarded him $450. Two months later, Justice Shalleck upheld that award in a decision reported in the New York Times and New York Herald Tribune. The award of damages likely helped Feinstein stay in business. A white-owned liquor store was found at 452 Lenox Avenue both by the MCCH business survey in the second half of 1935 and appeared in the Tax Department photograph taken in 1939-1941.

Louis Cobb appeared in the Washington Heights Magistrate's Court on March 20 charged with burglary. However, the affidavit making the complaint against him was not taken until March 25. In the interim, Magistrate Ford held Cobb without bail. An annotation in the docket book dated March 21 recorded "no bail in absence of record" suggesting police had not been able to produce his criminal record. Magistrates reaffirmed the denial of bail when Cobb's criminal record was eventually produced. He had been charged six times since 1920, for burglary, robbery, drug possession, homicide, procuring and possession of a firearm, resulting in two sentences to the State Prison at Sing Sing, two terms in the Penitentiary and a sentence in the workhouse, and two sentences for violating parole. The grand jury did not indict Cobb, instead transferring him to the Court of Special Sessions to be tried for petit larceny. That decision likely reflected the lack of evidence of him breaking into the store, and the value of the three bottles of liquor Officer Carter allegedly found on him; $7, according to the Magistrate's Court affidavit, well short of the $100 threshold for a prosecution for the felony of grand larceny. There was no evidence of the outcome of the case.
William Gindin's shoe store looted Around 9.45 PM William Gindin locked up his business, William's Shoe Store at 333 Lenox Avenue, according to the Magistrate's Court affidavit, and presumably went home. Unusually for a white business owner, he lived in an apartment at 346 Lenox Avenue a block to the north. Crowds gathered on Lenox Avenue north of West 125th Street and began to smash store windows around 10.30 PM, when a group of men looted Towbin's haberdashery at Lenox Avenue and West 125th Street. Gindin's store was targeted sometime soon after as one display window was already smashed and a large quantity of merchandise stolen by 11.20 P.M, according to Patrolman Nador Herrman. At that time he allegedly saw Julian Rogers, a thirty-seven-year-old Black auto washer, kick in the other display window, take three odd women's shoes worth $1 each and put them under his jacket. Herrman arrested Rogers about 100 feet from the store, and recovered the shoes, according to the Magistrates Court affidavit.

Just over an hour later, at 12.30 AM, a crowd gathered in front of the shoe store and threw stones and other objects at the windows, breaking more of the glass, after which a police officer arrested John Kennedy Jones for allegedly both inciting the group and throwing stones. The multiple attacks combined to do significant damage to William's Shoe Store. Both display windows were smashed and emptied of their contents in a photograph of the store published in the New York World Telegram. Merchandise scattered on the street is also visible. Gindin told a Probation Department investigator that shoes valued at $1200 were stolen during the disorder.

Gindin was one of the twenty white businessowners that the New York Sun, New York World-Telegram, and New York Amsterdam News identified as filing claims against the city for failing to protect their stores. He claimed $1273.89 in damages, well above the median reported claim of $733. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. Gindin was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding. Nor was he one of those whose cases went to trial. The city lost those cases, so Gindin likely was awarded some amount of damages. Whatever the award, Gindin was able to remain in business. William's Shoe Store appeared in the MCCH business survey from the second half of 1935, and Gindin still owned and operated the store when he registered for the draft in 1942.

Born in Russia in 1894, Ginden was resident in New York City at least by 1917 when he registered for the draft. He owned the shoe store by 1930, Gindin, when he was one of a small number of white business owners who resided in Harlem. According to the federal census schedule he lived a block north of his store, at 363 Lenox Avenue. Unusually, all six of the other apartments in that building had white residents, including three households headed by men who owned stores in Harlem later looted during the disorder who joined Gindin in suing the city, Irving Stetkin, Jacob Saloway and Michael D'Agostino. In 1935 Gindin lived at 346 Lenox Avenue, where he would have been a neighbor of Herman Young, who lived above a hardware he owned at that address that was also looted during the disorder. While Young and his wife went to his store when they heard glass smashing and witnessed the looting, Gindin apparently did not go to his store during the disorder. The Magistrates Court affidavit specified that no one was in the store when Rogers stole the shoes. By 1942, while still in business in Harlem, Gindin had moved to the Upper West Side, according to his draft registration.

Rogers was arraigned in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20, charged with burglary. Magistrate Renaud held him for the grand jury. After they indicted him, Rogers agreed to plead guilty to petit larceny. Judge Allen gave Rogers a suspended sentence.
Anthony Avitable's grocery store looted Anthony Avitable's grocery store 381 Lenox Avenue, was closed when crowds appeared on Lenox Avenue. That section of Lenox Avenue was one in which businesses suffered extensive damage and looting beginning around 11:30 PM. Around midnight Avitable got news of the disorder in Harlem, and drove back from the Bronx. He told the city Comptroller that as he drove over the 138th Street bridge he saw crowds "just breaking into my store," the New York Sun reported. Seeing no police near the store he drove on to the 28th Precinct Station on West 123rd Street and at 12:30 AM report the looting, according to the New York Post. Officers there said they "couldn't do anything for me," and that he should contact police headquarters. When Avitable called, "a police officer at headquarters told him over the phone: "I'll have men there in two minutes." They took forty-five minutes to arrive. Avitable's store likely suffered more damage in the violence around 1:00 AM when Alice Mitchell and Hugh Young were injured by flying glass. No one arrested during the disorder was charged with looting this store.

Avitable joined one hundred and five other white business owners in suing the city for damages suffered by their stores during the disorder. The only mentions of his business are in newspaper stories about those suits. Those stories located his store at 383 Lenox Avenue. A second storeowner who sued the city, Manny Zipp, was also reported as having a grocery store at 383 Lenox Avenue by the New York Sun, New York Post and New York World-Telegram. Photographs of 383 Lenox Avenue show only one business at that address, the Savoy Food Market, but there was a grocery store next door, with a Krasdale sign, at 381 Lenox Avenue, that appears to be the store that Avitable owned (the Krasdale company were wholesalers in 1935, not store operators). While the New York Sun identified Anthony Avitable as the owner of the Savoy Food Market, the New York Post and New York World-Telegram identified him only as the owner of a separate grocery store. He appeared separately from the Savoy Food Market in the New York Sun and New York Amsterdam News stories about those who brought the first twenty suits. Zipp had only been in business for three days. Newsreel footage from the day after the disorder shows a banner reading "Grand Opening" hanging over the entrance to the Savoy Food Market (in the Daily News photograph discussed below that a piece of dark fabric has been hung to obscure that banner, or perhaps the banner has simply been reversed). Zipp also reported that his losses, $721 compared to the $537 claimed by Avitable, forced him out of business. It was the Savoy Food Market that went out of business: there was a different store at 383 Lenox Avenue in both the MCCH business survey taken between June and December 1935, and the Tax Department photograph taken between 1939 and 1941. The grocery store with the Krasdale sign, Avitable's business, did appear in both the MCCH business survey and the Tax Department photograph. He may have been helped by damages paid by the city. One of the claimants awarded damages in the March 4, 1936, trial in the New York Supreme Court listed in the New York Herald Tribune was a grocer at 381 Lenox Avenue. However, the story identified the owner as Louis Berenson. That could be an error as no one of that name appears in any other source related to the disorder.

An unpublished image taken by a photographer for the Hearst newspapers, and a similar image published in the Daily News, captured the clean-up on the section of Lenox Avenue containing Avitable's store the morning after the disorder. The windows are missing, and both the display and the shelves within the store are empty. Some goods appear to have been thrown on to the street; a man is clearing debris with a shovel. Zipp's Savoy Food Market, and Jacob Saloway's cigar store on the corner, also have no windows and empty displays and shelves. Saloway joined Avitable and Zipp in suing the city.
Joseph Wade arrested
At about 2:45 AM, Officer William Leahy of the 28th Precinct allegedly saw Joseph Wade, a twenty-four-year-old Black "candy boy" coming out of Frank De Thomas' candy store at 101 West 127th Street. Leahy noted that store's windows were broken, but not that he had seen Wade break them. When Leahy arrested Wade, he found several toy pistols worth sixty cents in Wade's possession, according to the Magistrate's Court affidavit, or $70 of goods, according to later reports of Wade's sentencing in the New York Age and New York Times. For the last month, Wade had lived at 148 West 127th Street near the other end of the block of West 127th Street on which the store was located.

Wade was clearly not the only person to have looted the store, as DeThomas claimed $745.25 in losses. He was among the twenty white store-owners to bring the first suits against the city for failing to protect their businesses identified in the New York Sun.

Wade appeared in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20, when Magistrate Renaud ordered him held for the grand jury without bail. While few of those charged after the disorder were denied bail, Wade's criminal record featured three convictions since 1926, including one for unlawful entry resulting from a charge of burglary. That conviction in December 1926 was followed by a second arrest for burglary in April 1931 for which Wade was discharged. Two months later he was convicted of gun possession. Finally, in October 1933, Wade pled guilty to attempted second degree assault, having been charged with rape. As a result, he spent around two years in prison in the nine years before the disorder: two indeterminate terms for the first two convictions, and a year in Sing Sing Prison for the final conviction. The New York Age reported Wade had been paroled in December 1934, only three months before the disorder (a detail not mentioned by any other newspaper).

The grand jury indicted Wade for burglary on March 22, and five days later he appeared in the Court of General Sessions having agreed to plead guilty to the lesser offense of petit larceny. The Probation Department would have conducted an investigation before Wade's sentencing, but as he had been convicted previously in the Court of General Sessions, he had likely had been investigated previously and that report would have been put in the file created then. On April 8, Judge Donnellan sentenced him to six months in the workhouse, a decision reported in the press as well as recorded in the 28th Precinct Police Blotter.

There are more reports of the progress of Wade’s prosecution than most looting cases. He appears not only in the lists of those arrested published in the Atlanta World, Afro-American and Norfolk Journal and Guide, and in the New York Evening Journal, and the Home News story on proceedings in the Harlem Magistrates Court. The New York Sun also reported his return to the Magistrates Court on March 25 to have his bail decision continued. At least five papers - New York Amsterdam News, New York Herald Tribune, New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Times - reported Wade’s appearance in the Court of General Sessions to plead guilty. The New York Times , New York Evening News, Daily News and Times Union, and three Black newspapers, the Afro-American, New York Amsterdam News and New York Age, also reported his sentencing eleven days later.

Wade had lived in New York City since at least 1920, when he and his mother Marie appear in the federal census, living with his father's brother at 262 West 124th Street. According to the census, he was born in New York City, but the Sing Sing Prison Inmate Admission Register recorded Charleston, South Carolina as his birthplace, and that of both his parents. Exactly when the family moved to New York City is uncertain; the register entry recorded Wade as having lived there for eleven years, so since around 1922, but the census indicates he had been in the city at least two years earlier. The Admission Register contains other fragmentary details of Wade’s life before the disorder. His father apparently died around 1923, when Wade was thirteen years old. He remained in school until he was sixteen years old; his first arrest and conviction must have occurred around the time he left school. He was born in according to the register, and he gave his age as twenty-four years in the Magistrate’s Court, but the census schedule records his age as ten years in 1920, putting his birthday in 1910. He must have given that earlier date when arrested in 1926, as he was not prosecuted in the juvenile court as he would have been if under sixteen years of age. As a youthful first offender, he was sent to the New York City Reformatory in January 1927. Released later that year, he began working as a porter at the Alhambra Theater. It appears that Wade’s arrest and conviction for gun possession in June 1931 cost him that job. Now aged around twenty-one-years old, he was sentenced to another indeterminate sentence, this time in the Penitentiary.

Wade served no more than eighteen months, as he started work as a porter for Sam Rosen of 216 West 125th Street around January 1933, according to the Sing Sing Prison Inmate Admission Register. By October, 1933, he lived at 109 West 129th Street; his mother Marie lived at 226 West 124th Street. That month Wade was charged with rape. The Admissions Register includes a section to record “Criminal Acts attributed to;” Wade’s entry is “Lived with girl,” suggesting that the charge may have been statutory rape, for sexual acts with a girl under eighteen years of age, the age of consent in New York in 1933. (Both the plea bargain and the sentence are in line with how courts handled such cases). Although sentenced to a minimum term of fifteen months, the Admissions Register recorded that he was eligible for parole after one year, on December 28, 1934. The report of his sentencing in the New York Age indicated he was released at the time.
Manny Zipp's grocery store looted Manny Zipp's grocery store at 383 Lenox Avenue, was looted during the disorder. There are no details of those events other than Zipp's statement to the city Comptroller that "everything in his store was taken," forcing him out of business, as the New York Post reported it. He had been operating the store for only three days. That section of Lenox Avenue was one in which businesses suffered extensive damage and looting beginning around 11:30 PM; the intersection likely saw particularly extensive violence around 1:00 AM when Alice Mitchell and Hugh Young were injured by flying glass. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this store.

Zipp was one of seven business owners mentioned in stories published in the New York Post, New York Sun and New York World-Telegram on July 23 that described testimony to the Comptroller from white businessmen suing the city for damages based on the failure of police to protect their stores. He was not in the list of those who brought the first twenty suits published earlier in the New York Sun and New York Amsterdam News, but included in that list was the Savoy Food Market. Newsreel footage from the day after the disorder showed a banner reading "Grand Opening" hanging over the entrance to the Savoy Food Market, fitting with Zipp's account of having opened his store only three days earlier (in the photograph discussed below a piece of dark fabric had been hung to obscure that banner or perhaps the banner had simply been reversed). While the New York Sun identified Anthony Avitable as the owner of the Savoy Food Market, the New York Post and New York World-Telegram identified him only as the owner of a grocery store at 383 Lenox Avenue. Photographs of 383 Lenox Avenue show only one business at that address, but there was a grocery store next door, with a Krasdale sign, at 381 Lenox Avenue. That appeared to be the store that Avitable owned; the Krasdale company were wholesalers in 1935 not store operators. Avitable appeared separately from the Savoy Food Market in the New York Sun and New York Amsterdam News stories about those who brought the first twenty suits. Avitable also ultimately claimed a lesser amount of damage than Zipp, $537 compared to $721, which did not seem enough to have been enough to wipe out a business. It was the Savoy Food Market that went out of business, fitting with Zipp's story. There was a different business than the Savoy Food Market at 383 Lenox Avenue in both the MCCH business survey taken between June and December 1935, and the Tax Department photograph taken between 1939 and 1941. The grocery store with the Krasdale sign did appear in both the MCCH business survey and the Tax Department photograph.

Zipp claim of $721 was close to the median reported claim for damages of $733. An unpublished image taken by a photographer for the Hearst newspapers, and a similar image published in the Daily News, captured the clean-up on the section of Lenox Avenue containing the Savoy Food Market. To its left was the grocery store that must be Avitable's business, with the Krasdale grocery chain sign visible. The market's windows had been smashed and the display emptied. Some goods appear to have been thrown on to the street; a man was clearing debris with a shovel. Another man can be seen through the window inside the store; that may be Avitable cleaning up. The two other businesses visible beyond the market also had no windows and empty displays and shelves. Jacob Saloway, who owned the cigar store on the corner, as well as Avitable, also sued the city for damages.

The three newspaper stories all reported the storeowner's name differently: the New York Sun called him "Manny Zipp," the New York Post reported his name as "Manning Zipp," and the World-Telegram "Manny Vitt." The name used here, Manny Zipp, combines the most frequently repeated elements of those variations.
Claims for damages announced, April 23 (20) Seven newspapers reported the first twenty damage claims filed after the disorder. Those stories were published on April 23 and 24, with the exception of the only Black newspaper to report the claims, the New York Amsterdam News, which published its story more than a month later, on June 1. As a weekly publication, that newspaper often published stories some time after the city's daily white newspapers, but that delay was outside that practice.

The New York Sun, which published the longest story, and the New York Amsterdam News, included a list of the twenty claimants, the address of their businesses and the amount of their claim. The New York World Telegram listed the seven largest claims, and the New York American the five largest claims (the later mistakenly reported that twenty-two merchants filed claims). The New York Times, Home News and Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported only the number and total value of the claims. Only the Brooklyn Daily Eagle provided an exact total, $37,972.53; the other stories all rounded the total up to $38,000.

The New York Sun, New York World-Telegram and New York Times quoted the section of the General Municipal Law on which the claims were based, while the Home News and New York Amsterdam News summarized it. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle and New York American made no mention of the law. None of the stories commented on the law or the novelty of its use.

The stories varied in the detail they provided about the process: while they all noted that the claims had been filed with the Department of Finance, only the New York American, New York Sun, New York World Telegram and New York Times added that the Deputy Comptroller would summon the merchants to his office for questioning in a few days. The Home News more precisely noted that, "According to procedure, the complaints are first shown to the Comptroller, who decides the amount, if any, he believes the city owes. If dissatisfied, the claimant may appeal to the court."
Jacob Saloway's stationary store looted Jacob Saloway's stationary store at 381 Lenox Avenue was looted during the disorder. There are no details of those events. That section of Lenox Avenue was one in which businesses suffered extensive damage and looting beginning around 11:30 PM; the intersection likely saw particularly extensive violence around 1:00 AM when Alice Mitchell and Hugh Young were injured by flying glass. Saloway appeared among the white business owners who filed the first twenty claims for damages against the city identified in stories in the New York Sun and New York Amsterdam News. The stories included only a name, business address, and the amount of damages sought, $676 in Saloway's case. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. While Saloway was not among those whose testimony appears in newspaper stories about that proceeding, he was one of seven whose whose cases went to trial in the New York Supreme Court to test the claims in March 1936. The jury awarded damages in all those cases, but none of the newspaper reports of the proceeding mentioned the amount awarded to Saloway. Only the New York Herald Tribune identified him as one of the claimants, noting only that he was a stationer. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this store.

An unpublished image taken by a photographer for the Hearst newspapers, and a similar image published in the Daily News, captured the clean-up on the section of Lenox Avenue containing Saloway's store the morning after the disorder. Saloway's store can be glimpsed on the far left of the image, with signs visible indicating it sold cigars. The windows appear to be missing and the displays emptied of stock. The angle does not show the interior of the store. The two businesses to the right of the store, in the foreground of the picture also have no windows and empty displays and shelves. Both Anthony Vitable, who owned the grocery store, and Manny Zipp, who owned the Savoy Food Market, also sued the city for damages.

Whatever the damages awarded him, it is possible Saloway was able to remain in business. The MCCH business survey included a white-owned stationary store (a type of store that sold cigars) at 381 Lenox Avenue in the second half of 1935, but no details to confirm that it was the same store there on the night of the disorder. A business also appeared in the Tax Department photograph from 1939-1941, but the signage is not visible. In 1930, the federal census recorded that Saloway 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 Saloway in suing the city, William Gindin, Irving Stetkin and Michael D'Agostino. There was no evidence of whether Saloway still lived there in 1935; Gindin at least had relocated to another building on Lenox Avenue by the time of the disorder.
Harry Piskin's laundry looted Harry Piskin's laundry at 100 West 126th Street, just off Lenox Avenue, was first the target of stones, according to testimony he gave to the city Comptroller reported by the New York Sun. The intersection of West 125th Street and Lenox Avenue, and the blocks of the avenue to the north were the site of multiple acts of violence and attacks on businesses during the disorder, but there is no clear evidence of when crowds would have first arrived at the laundry other than the report that looting of a store at the intersection started around 10.30 PM. It was likely attacks on the laundry began not long after, around 11:00 PM. The stones were eventually followed by a bullet fired into the laundry's show window, Piskin testified, according to the New York Sun. The story quoted an exchange in which the Comptroller asked Piskin if he had heard other pistol shots; he answered "plenty." There are no other mentions of guns being fired in attacks on businesses; shooting was instead associated with police responding to looting. As in other stories about the disorder, shooting signified a greater level of violence than stones being thrown. At issue in this case was the police response: the Comptroller's next question in the exchange reported by the New York Sun was, "Did [the police] send protection?" Piskin answered, "they did not."

Instead, after the shot at the window, Piskin testified that "they looted his laundry, broke all of his machinery and drove him out of business." George's Lunch, the neighboring business on the corner of West 126th Street and Lenox Avenue, suffered similarly extensive damage. At some point he sought help. He first found a police officer a block away at the intersection of West 125th Street and Lenox Avenue: "Report it--I can't leave my post," the officer told him, according to the New York Post. He continued across town to the police station on West 123rd Street between 7th and 8th Avenues: "Oh we know all about it," was the response there. Later, a police officer responded to Piskin's complaints about the lack of police protection by telling him, "My life is more important to me than your business is to you," testimony reported in the New York Post and New York World-Telegram. Piskin had joined other white merchants in suing the city for damages, 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 arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from the laundry.

The only mention of the damage to Piskin's laundry was in newspaper stories about the claims against the city made by white business owners. Piskin was part of the group of twenty who filed the first claims identified by the New York Sun, New York World-Telegram, New York American and New York Amsterdam News in April and was mentioned again in stories published by the New York Evening Journal, New York Sun, New York Post, New York World-Telegram and New York Amsterdam News at the end of July, by which time 106 merchants had filed suits. He appeared as an example in those stories likely because he claimed the largest sum for damages, $14,125 (the next largest claim was from the adjacent business, George's Lunch), well above the median reported claim of $733. The city lost the cases that went to trial to resolve the merchants' claims, so it was likely that Piskin received some compensation. Surprisingly, his was not among the seven claims in the first trial in the Supreme Court in March 1936, which involved others from the group identified in April, all represented by the same attorney, Barney Rosenstein. However, the sums the jury awarded in that trial were only a small proportion of the claims, so any award Piskin received was likely insufficient for him to remain in business. The MCCH business survey taken from June to December 1935 did not record a laundry at 100 West 126th Street. The Tax Department photograph taken between 1939 and 1941 did not offer a clear view of what business was operating at that address.
Julian Rogers arrested Around 11:20 PM, Patrolman Nador Herrman allegedly saw Julian Rogers, a thirty-seven-year-old Black auto washer, kick in a display window in William Gindin's shoe store at 333 Lenox Avenue. Rogers then took three odd women's shoes worth $1 each and put them under his jacket. Herrman arrested Rogers about 100 feet from the store, and recovered the shoes, according to the Magistrates Court affidavit. Gindin had closed his store around 9.45 PM. Around 10:30 PM, crowds gathered on Lenox Avenue north of West 125th Street and began to smash store windows, and a group of men looted Towbin's haberdashery at Lenox Avenue and West 125th Street. By the time Rogers allegedly stole from Gindin's store the other display window had already been smashed and "a large quantity of merchandise stolen," the patrolman told the Probation officer investigating the case. Just over an hour later, another officer arrested John Kennedy Jones, alleging he had been part of a large group that threw objects that smashed more of the store windows. Gindin claimed $1273.89 in damages, well above the median reported claim of $733, as part of a group of twenty white businessowners who sued the city for failing to protect their stores identified by the New York Sun.

Rogers was arraigned in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20, charged with burglary. Magistrate Renaud held him for the grand jury and set bail at $1000. He appeared in the lists of those arrested published in Atlanta World, Afro-American and Norfolk Journal and Guide, and in the New York Evening Journal. None of Rogers' other appearances in court were reported in the press. After being indicted by the grand jury on April 5, the District Attorney's case file indicated that he agreed to plead guilty to petit larceny, and appeared in the Court of General Sessions to do so on April 16. Returned to court for sentencing on April 25, Rogers received a suspended sentence from Judge Allen, recorded in the 28th Precinct Police Blotter. A consideration in that decision may have been the Probation officer's conclusion that there was "no evidence that [Rogers] was a member of any group which participated in the riot;" instead "he was swayed by the behavior of the mob and that when he saw a general invasion of stores, he resorted to the same practice." Unusually, the Probation Department file indicated that Rogers was not placed on probation, as was generally the case for those given a suspended sentence.

The Probation Department's investigation gathered few details of Rogers' life. He did not provide the information they required for their analysis of his history and personality. Born in Atlanta, Georgia, around 1898, Rogers claimed no recollection of his parents as he had been raised by various relatives since he was infant; nor could he give the Probation officer the name of the school he attended. When Rogers was sixteen years old, he left the uncle with who he had been living, and traveled around the country. In 1917 he said he enlisted in the US Army, but was diagnosed with syphilis and discharged after six months. Around 1926, he arrived in New York City. During his nine years in the city, Rogers claimed to have lived in various furnished rooms and lodging houses, but gave no specific addresses. He likely spent at least some of the time homeless, as he was at the time of the disorder. For two months before his arrest, he slept in a garage at 332 East 122nd Street, without the owner being aware. For around a year Rogers had worked roughly one day a week washing cars at the same garage.

Almost a year before the disorder, police arrested Rogers for failing to leave a street corner when directed to by an officer. Convicted in the Magistrates Court, he received a suspended sentence. The Probation officer reported that Rogers spent considerable time on street corners, congregating with "neighborhood idlers," and "engag[ing] in petty gambling, with chance acquaintances."

The decision not to place Rogers on probation could have resulted from difficulty of supervising a man without a job, home or family in the city. There was also a possibility that Rogers deliberately withheld information to keep the white authorities at arms length. The Probation officer investigating him could not decide: "he is either unable or unwilling to give definite information concerning his antecedents, and the facts of his domestic life are unobtainable,...and his means of subsistence, for the most part, is open to question."
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.
Sam Lefkowtiz's store windows broken Around 9.45 PM, the windows of Sam Lefkowitz's store at 2147 7th Avenue were broken. Officer Edward Doran of the 40th Precinct, in his affidavit in the Harlem Magistrates Court, stated he observed a group of people gather in front of the store. Leroy Brown then allegedly threw a tailor's dummy through the window of the store, after which Doran heard him say to the rest of the group, "Go right along and get the other windows." As Doran arrested Brown, he saw the group continue north up 7th Avenue, and "heard the crash of glass and later observed other windows broken." The unclaimed laundry store at 2145 7th Avenue, on the south side of the Lefkowitz's store, also had its window broken. Across 7th Avenue, attacks on stores on this block began around an hour before Brown's arrest. Sometime later, those stores were looted. Sometime after the windows were broken, Lefkowitz's store was also looted. Looting was not the goal Officer Doran reported allegedly hearing Brown express, so the looting is treated here as a separate event.

Sam Lefkowitz was was identified as the store owner in the Harlem Magistrates Court docket book, although Officer Doran was the complainant in the affidavit.

When Brown appeared in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20, he was charged with both malicious mischief, for allegedly breaking the window, and inciting a riot, for his alleged call for the group to break other windows. Magistrate Renaud held Brown for the grand jury on the riot charge, and sent him to the Court of Special Sessions to be tried on the charge of malicious mischief. When Brown was brought before the grand jury, they sent him to the Court of Special Sessions to be tried for the misdemeanor form of the offense of riot. The outcome of Brown's two trials in the Court of Special Sessions are unknown.

Lefkowitz was one of the twenty white business owners identified as filing claims for damages against the city in stories in the New York Sun, New York World-Telegram, New York American and New York Amsterdam News. He claimed losses of $1610.64, one of just over a third of the owners who claimed more than $1000. The city lost court cases resulting from these claims, so Lefkowitz likely received some damages, but perhaps not enough to remain in business. The MCCH business survey did not include a business at 2147 7th Avenue in the second half of 1935. The Tax Department photograph was taken from too far away to identify the businesses at the address in 1939-1941.
Estelle Cohen's clothing store looted The windows of the Norman Toggery store at 437 Lenox Avenue, near West 132nd Street, were smashed during the disorder, and the goods on display stolen. The only information on the attack on the store was a letter the store's white owner, Mrs Estelle Cohen wrote to Mayor La Guardia on March 21, 1935. A Black salesman was present in the store when the windows were broken. He could do nothing to prevent the looting, but did telephone Cohen at her home in Washington Heights, 605 West 170th Street. She then called the police precinct and police headquarters, telling La Guardia with clear frustration that "all the satisfaction I got was that all the men were out and that all windows were being smashed." Given that the store was still open, the attack likely came sometime soon after 11:00 PM, when staff in nearby stores either side of Norman Toggery reported a crowd gathered around Lenox Avenue and West 132nd Street. Herbert Canter, who owned a pharmacy at 419 Lenox Avenue, saw "a "mob" carrying bricks, stones and bottles, as well as canned goods march down the street shouting, "Down with the whites! Let's get what we can," and hurling missiles through the windows, in testimony in the Municipal Court reported by the New York Herald Tribune. A block north, David Schmoockler, the manager of William Feinstein’s liquor store at 452 Lenox Avenue, also saw a crowd of around thirty people. Between 11.00 PM and midnight he watched as the crowd "created disturbances, hurled various missiles, broke store windows, set fire to some stores, pillaged others, and in general damaged property of various merchants in the locality," according to Justice Shalleck's summary of his testimony in the Municipal Court. A little over an hour later, Feinstein's liquor store was attacked by a crowd of thirty to forty people.

What Cohen wanted, she wrote La Guardia was "police protection at all times. I have my sons in that store, and am a widow; business is very hard besides and I don't wish them to lose their lives." Lacking that protection during the disorder, Cohen sent someone to the storefront to board up the windows after they were smashed and the merchandise taken from the display. However, the boarded-up window failed to protect the inside of the store, Cohen wrote:
...they came back and broke through the windows again and smashed the cases and took the goods out. The shirts were taken off the forms, which showed that they had ample time to work. The floors were scattered with glass and goods all trampled up.
No one arrested for looting was identified as having stolen goods from the store. Cohen estimated her losses as at least $800. A little over a month later, when the New York Sun, New York World-Telegram, and New York Amsterdam News reported that she had joined nineteen other merchants in filing suit against the city government, she claimed $1219.77 in damages. Unlike some other store owners, Cohen did not have burglary insurance, "on account of not being able to get it up in that section." Given that the city lost the trials on such claims reported in the press, it was likely that Cohen received some compensation for the losses. She did seem to have been able to remain in business. The Toggery shop was included in the MCCH business survey, with the investigator recording that the store had been there for three years, managed by "Mr Thomas and a friend," and had "a neat display of ties, hats and shirts in window." The store also appeared in the Tax Department photograph taken between 1939 and 1941.
Alfonso Principe's saloon looted Around 9.00 PM, an object thrown from the street broke the first window in the Harlem Grill, a saloon at 2140 7th Avenue, the manager, Louis Fata told James Tartar, an investigator for the MCCH. Over an hour later, between 10 and 11:00 PM, more objects thrown at the saloon broke two more windows. At some point in the evening, individuals went further into the business, stealing "about $700" of stock Fata estimated. Further examination clearly revealed fewer losses, as when the owner Alfonso Principe filed a claim for damages, he asked for only $453.90, according to the New York Sun and New York Amsterdam News. Tartar also recorded information from the white owners of four of the other six occupied stores on this block of 7th Avenue, between West 127th Street and West 128th Street. They reported windows broken sometime between 8.45 PM and 11.00 PM, and stock losses ranging from $33 at the cigar store at 2154 7th Avenue, $200 at the grocery store next to the saloon at 2140 7th Avenue, $150 at the cleaning company at 2152 7th Avenue to $850 at the auto equipment store at 2152 7th Avenue. None of those neighboring storeowners were among the twenty-seven identified as suing the city for failing to protect their businesses, but an additional eighty-five who brought suits were not identified. The Black-owned Cozy Shoppe at 2154 7th Avenue, on the corner of 128th Street, was undamaged; someone from that store had written "Colored Shoppe" on the store window. Tartar included the "Cozy Shop" on his drawing of the block, together with a Black-owned beauty parlor to the left of the auto equipment store, but neither appear in his list of looted businesses, suggesting the beauty parlor may also have been undamaged.

When crowds that had been focused on the block of West 125th Street housing Kress' store began moving to other parts of Harlem, the blocks immediately north on 7th Avenue were among their first targets. The saloon sat on the corner of 7th Avenue and West 127th Street, so only two blocks from where the disorder began. As they had on West 125th Street, people threw objects at the windows of white stores, at whites on the streets, and around 11.00 PM, at a passing Fifth Avenue Company bus, and later looted stores. The time the crowds appeared was early enough in the evening that most of the stores would still have been open for business, or at least still staffed, as the saloon apparently was. That all those interviewed by Tartar could give a time when people threw objects that broke their store windows indicates they were present. Someone was also present in the Cozy Shoppe to write on its window that it was a "Colored Shoppe." It is not clear if the white business were occupied when they were looted. Tartar recorded the value of the stock stolen from their stores, suggesting that looting may have happened some time after windows were broken, as more general narratives in the press relate. Crowds smashed windows in stores on the opposite side of the street apparently without looting them around 9.45 PM, when a police officer arrested Leroy Brown for urging a group of people to follow his lead after he threw a tailor's dummy through a window. No one arrested for looting is identified as having stolen goods from the saloon.

James Tartar investigated the Harlem Grill, and those businesses neighboring it, because of what happened after the looting, or at least after the looting had started. Around 12.55 AM, two police officers in a squad car traveling south on 7th Avenue reported hearing smashing glass, and seeing Lloyd Hobbs, a sixteen-year-old Black student standing in the store window passing merchandise to a crowd of people on the street. After they stopped their car and chased after the crowd, one, Patrolman McInerny, fatally shot Hobbs. Hobbs and witnesses at the scene said he had been passing by not taking goods from the store. The only other sources that mentioned the Harlem Grill are the New York Sun and New York Amsterdam News stories about the first group of business owners to sue the city (which gave the address of the business not its name). By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those who had filed claims, 106 owners had sought damages. Principe was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding, nor did he appear in any of the reported court cases to resolve those claims.

The claim for $453.90 in losses was less than the median reported claim of $733. The city lost the court cases, so Principe likely was awarded some amount of damages, but based on those case it was only a small proportion. However, it appears he was able to remain in business. The Harlem Grill appeared in both the MCCH business survey conducted in the second half of 1935, and in the Tax Department photograph of 2140 7th Avenue taken in 1939-1941.
Frank DeThomas' candy store looted Around 9:55 PM, Frank DeThomas closed and locked his candy store at 101 West 127th Street, at the rear of 339 Lenox Avenue, he told the Magistrate's Court, and likely headed to his home in White Plains. Crowds appeared on the blocks of Lenox Avenue north of West 125th Street not long after DeThomas left. Some time during the violence that spanned the blocks as far north as West 134th Street, the windows of DeThomas' store were broken. Later, at about 2:45 AM, Officer William Leahy of the 28th Precinct allegedly saw Joseph Wade, a twenty-four-year-old Black "candy boy" coming out of the store. Leahy arrested him and found several toy pistols worth sixty cents in Wade's possession, according to the Magistrate's Court affidavit, or $70 of goods, according to later reports of Wade's sentencing in the New York Age and New York Times. Wade lived at 148 West 127th Street near the other end of the block of West 127th Street on which the store was located.

Wade was clearly not the only person to have looted the store as DeThomas filed a claim for $745.25 in damages. De Thomas was among the twenty white store-owners who filed claims for damages from the city for failing to protect their businesses identified in the New York Sun and New York Amsterdam News. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suits, 106 owners had sought damages. DeThomas was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding nor did he appear in any of the trials to resolve the claims. The claim for $745.25 in losses was just above the median reported claim of $733. The city lost the court cases so DeThomas likely was awarded a small amount of damages. It was not clear if he was able to remain in business. The MCCH business survey did not include any businesses at 101 West 127th Street in the second half of 1935. The Tax Department photograph of the address taken between 1939 and 1941 showed a business, but the angle and distance did not allow any details of the store to be identified.

Wade appeared in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20, when Magistrate Renaud ordered him held for the grand jury without bail. While few of those charged after the disorder were denied bail, Wade had been convicted three times since 1926, including once for unlawful entry resulting from a charge of burglary. The grand jury indicted him for burglary on March 22. Five days later he appeared in the Court of General Sessions having agreed to plead guilty to the lesser offense of petit larceny. Almost all those indicted for looting agreed to such plea bargains. On April 8, Judge Donnellan sentenced him to six months in the workhouse, a decision reported in the press as well as recorded in the 28th Precinct Police Blotter.
Sam Lefkowitz's store looted Sam Lefkowitz's store at 2147 7th Avenue was looted during the disorder. There are no details of those events other than the amount of the owner's claim for losses: $1610.64. Around 9.45 PM, the store windows were broken, and Officer Edward Doran arrested Leroy Brown after allegedly seeing him throw a tailor's dummy through the window of the store, and urge a group of other people to "Go right along and get the other windows." As Doran arrested Brown, the group continued north up 7th Avenue, breaking more store windows. The unclaimed laundry store at 2145 7th Avenue, on the south side of the Lefkowitz's store, also had its window broken; there was no evidence of whether it was also looted. Across 7th Avenue, attacks on store windows began around an hour before Brown's arrest. There was no evidence of when the stores were looted. Lefkowitz's store did not appear to have been looted at the time Brown allegedly broke its windows; looting was not the goal Officer Doran reported allegedly hearing Brown express, so the breaking of the windows is treated here as a separate event.

The only evidence of the looting was the store's appearance in stories about the first twenty white business-owners filing claims for damages published in the New York Sun, New York World-Telegram, New York American and New York Amsterdam News. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. Lefkowitz was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding, nor did he appear in any of the trials to resolve claims. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this business.

The claim for $1610.64 in losses was above the median claim of $733, one of the just over a third of the claims that was for more than $1000 but well short of the largest claim of $14,125. The city lost the court cases, so Lefkowitz likely was awarded some amount of damages, but based on those case it was only a small proportion. It is not clear if he was able to remain in business. The MCCH business survey did not include a business at 2147 7th Avenue in the second half of 1935. The Tax Department photograph was taken from too far away to identify the businesses at the address in 1939-1941.
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.
William Gindin's shoe store windows broken At 12:30 A.M. Patrolman James Lamattina saw a "large number" of people gathered in front of William's Shoe store at at 333 Lenox Avenue. Then John Kennedy Jones "motioning with his hand, said to the others "come on," and threw a rock that "broke the plate glass window" of the store, Lamattina alleged in his Magistrates Court affidavit. Other people in the crowd also threw "stones and sticks" at the window. Lamattina arrested Jones, a twenty-four-year-old Black laborer, likely after having to pursue him. No other members of the crowd were arrested. Groups of people broke windows in at least two other nearby stores in the preceding half hour. About fifteen minutes before this alleged attack on the shoe store, a group of about thirty people had broken windows in a restaurant at 317 Lenox Avenue, a block to the south, where a police officer arrested one man. Ten minutes before that arrest, about 12:05 A.M., another group had broken windows in the store across the street at 318 Lenox Avenue, where a police officer arrested two men.

Just over an hour earlier, at 11.20 PM, Patrolman Nador Herrman allegedly saw Julian Rogers, a thirty-seven-year-old Black auto washer, kick in one of the store's display window, take three odd women's shoes worth $1 each and put them under his jacket. Herrman arrested Rogers about 100 feet from the store. William's Shoe store had been a target before Roger's arrest. One display window was already smashed and a large quantity of merchandise stolen, according to Patrolman Herrman. The multiple attacks combined to do significant damage. Both display windows are smashed and emptied of their contents in the photograph of the store published in the New York World Telegram. Merchandise scattered on the street is also visible. Gindin told a Probation Department investigator that shoes valued at $1200 were stolen during the disorder.

Gindin was one of the twenty white business-owners that the New York Sun identified as suing the city for failing to protect their stores; he claimed $1273.89 in damages, well above the median reported claim of $733. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. Gindin is not among those whose testimony appears in newspaper stories about that proceeding, and he is not one of those whose cases went to trial to test the claims. The city lost the test cases, so Gindin likely was awarded some amount of damages. Whatever the award, Gindin was able to remain in business. William's Shoe Store appears in the MCCH business survey from the second half of 1935, and Gindin still owned and operated the store when he registered for the draft in 1942.

Born in Russia in 1894, Ginden was resident in New York City at least by 1917, when he registered for the draft. By 1930, Gindin owned the shoe store, and was one of a small number of white businessowners who resided in Harlem. According to the federal census schedule he lived a block north of his store, at 363 Lenox Avenue. Unusually, all six of the other apartments in that building had white residents, including three households headed by men who owned stores in Harlem later looted during the disorder who joined Gindin in suing the city, Irving Stetkin, Jacob Saloway and Michael D'Agostino. In 1935 Gindin lived at 346 Lenox Avenue, where he would have been a neighbor of Herman Young, who lived above a hardware he owned at that address that was also looted during the disorder. While Young and his wife went to his store when they heard glass smashing and witnessed the looting, Gindin apparently did not head to his store during the disorder. The Magistrates Court affidavit specified that no one was in the store when Rogers stole the shoes. By 1942, while still in business in Harlem, Gindin had moved to the Upper West Side, according to his draft registration.

Jones was also arraigned in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20, charged with riot according to the docket book, for leading others in the crowd to attack the store. Crossed out is an additional charge of malicious mischief, for damage to the store window; that charge does appear on the Magistrate Court affidavit, in a handwritten note that also lists the forms of riot being charged. Magistrate Renaud held Jones for the grand jury and set bail at $1000. On March 27, when he appeared before the grand jury, they transferred him to the Court of Special Sessions for trial on misdemeanor forms of the charges. The judges convicted Jones on April 1 and gave him a suspended sentence, recorded in the 28th Precinct Police Blotter.
Sav-On Drug Store looted The Sav-on Drug Store at 327 Lenox Avenue was looted during the disorder. There were no details of those events other than the amount of the owner's claim for damages: $572. The intersection of West 125th Street and Lenox Avenue, and the blocks of the avenue to the north, were the site of multiple acts of violence and attacks on businesses during the disorder. Crowds would have first broken windows in the drug store sometime after 10.30 PM, when a group of men robbed Toby’s Men’s shop on the northwest corner of 125th Street and Lenox Avenue and before 11:20 PM, when a patrolman arrived at the shoe store a few buildings to the north to find smashed windows and merchandise missing from the display. Groups continued to sporadically break windows, take merchandise and occasionally attack whites they encountered on the streets for the next three hours.

The only evidence of the looting was the store's appearance 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. The drug store was one of three businesses where the store name was included rather than the owner's name. The only other information provided was the address and the amount of the claim. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. The drug store was not among those whose owner's testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding, nor was it the subject of any of the trials to resolve claims. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this business.

The claim for $572 in losses was one of the smaller claims detailed in the newspaper stories, less than the median reported claim of $733. The city lost the court cases, so the store owner likely was awarded some amount of damages, but based on those case it was only a small proportion. Whatever the award, the store appeared to have been able to remain in business. The MCCH business survey included a white-owned Sav-on drug store at 327 Lenox Avenue in the second half of 1935. The business also appeared in the Tax Department photograph from 1939-1941.
Irving Stetkin's stationary store looted When someone on Lenox Avenue threw "the first stone" at the windows of Irving Stetkin's stationary 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 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 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.

The only details of the damage to Stetkin's store is in newspaper stories about the civil suits against the city brought by white merchants. Stetkin is not part of the group of twenty 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 stationary store, according to the New York Times.

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.
Joseph Cohen's store looted Joseph Cohen's store at 2129 7th Avenue was looted during the disorder. There were no details of those events other than the amount of the owner's claim for losses: $47.40. At least one other store in that row of one-story businesses, Abe Mohr's store at 2131 7th Avenue, was also looted. Windows in those stores could have been broken by groups coming from 125th Street beginning around 8:30 PM. Looting likely did not take place until around 10:30 PM, when enough damage to allow merchandise to be taken from the windows and the owners had closed the businesses and left.

The only evidence of the looting was the store's appearance among the first twenty white business-owners who filed claims against the city for damages identified in stores published in the New York Sun and New York Amsterdam News. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. Cohen was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding, nor did he appear in any of the trials to resolve the claims. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this store.

The claim for $47.40 in losses was the smallest claim reported in the press, well below the median claim of $733. The city lost the court cases, so Cohen likely was awarded some amount of damages, but based on those case it was only a small proportion. It was not clear if he was able to remain in business. The MCCH business survey did not include a store at 2129 7th Avenue in the second half of 1935. The Tax Department photograph of the address in 1939-1941 was taken at an angle that did not show what business was at the address.
Samuel Mestetzky's store looted Samuel Mestetzky's store looted at 60 West 129th Street was looted during the disorder. There are no details of those events other than the amount of the owner's claim for losses: $5,860.50. A second business at the same address, owned by Irving Guberman, was also looted, with losses claimed of $3,967. The address is part of a seven-story building that occupied the southeast corner of Lenox Avenue and West 129th Street.

The only evidence of the looting is the store's appearance 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, New York World-Telegram, New York American and New York Amsterdam News. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. Mestetzky was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding, nor did he appear in any of the trials to test the claims. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this business.

Mestetzky's claim for $5,860.50 in damages was the third largest detailed in the newspaper stories, well above the median claim of $733. The city lost the court cases, so Mestetzky likely was awarded some amount of damages, but based on those case it was likely only a small proportion. It is not clear if he was able to remain in business. The MCCH business survey includes three operating at 60 West 129th Street in the second half of 1935, a white-owned stationary store, and black-owned barber and tailor's shop. Either Mestetzky or Guberman could have owned the stationary store; the newspaper stories did not identify their businesses. The Tax Department photograph was taken from too far away to identify the businesses at the address in 1939-1941.
Abe Mohr's store looted Abe Mohr's store at 2131 7th Avenue was looted during the disorder. There were no details of those events other than the amount of the owner's claim for losses: $167.50. At least one other store in that row of one story businesses, Joseph Cohen's store at 2129 7th Avenue, was also looted. Windows in those stores could have been broken by groups coming from 125th Street beginning around 8:30 PM. Looting likely did not take place until around 10:30 PM, when enough damage to allow merchandise to be taken from the windows and the owners had closed the businesses and left.

The only evidence of the looting was the store's appearance in lists of the first twenty white business-owners filing claims against the city for damages published in the New York Sun and New York Amsterdam News. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those making claims, 106 owners had sought damages. Mohr was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding, nor did he appear in any of the trials to resolve those claims. No one arrested for looting was identified as having stolen goods from the store.

Mohr's claim for $167.50 in losses was well below the median claim of $733 of those reported in the press. The city lost the courts cases, so Mohr likely was awarded some amount of damages, but based on those case it was likely only a small proportion. It was not clear if he was able to remain in business. The MCCH business survey did include a white tailor's store at 2131 7th Avenue in the second half of 1935 that could have been Mohr's store. The Tax Department photograph of the address in 1939-1941 was taken at an angle that did not show the storefront.
Harry Levinson's store looted Harry Levinson's store at 100 West 129th Street was looted during the disorder. There were no details of those events. That section of Lenox Avenue was one in which businesses suffered extensive damage and looting beginning around 11:30 PM; the intersection likely saw particularly extensive violence around 1:00 AM when Alice Mitchell and Hugh Young were injured by flying glass. Levinson appeared in lists of white business owners who brought the first twenty suits for damages against the city for the failure of police to protect their stores published in the New York Sun, New York World-Telegram, New York American and New York Amsterdam News. The list included only a name, business address, and the amount of damages sought. The New York World-Telegram and New York American identified only those who filed the largest claims: Levinson's claim was the third largest.

By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those who filed claims, 106 owners had sought damages. Levinson was mentioned in only one of the newspaper stories about that proceeding, with the New York Sun reporting that the "mob cleaned out" his store, but no other information. No one arrested for looting is identified as having stolen goods from the store.

Levinson's claim of $4,805 in damages was well above the median claim of $733. As the city lost repeatedly in court, he likely was awarded some amount of damages. However, based on the awards in those cases he would have received was only a small proportion of what he claimed. The New York Sun reported that he told the Comptroller that he had been "forced to retire." No store appeared at his address in the MCCH business survey in the second half of 1935. The Tax Department photographs taken between 1939 and 1941 did not include a clear view of the address.
Sam Apuzzo's store looted Sam Apuzzo's store 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 damages: $195.69. Two other businesses at the same address were also looted and appear among those whose owners made claims for losses, Michael D'Agostino's food market and a store owned by 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.

The only evidence of the looting was the store's appearance 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. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. Apuzzo was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding, nor did he appear in any of the trials to resolve claims. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this business.

The claim for $195.69 in losses was one of the smaller claims reported in the press, well below the median claim of $733. The city lost the court cases, so Apuzzo likely was awarded some amount of damages, but based on those case it was only a small proportion. It is not clear if he was able to remain in business. The MCCH business survey did include a white-owned food market at 348 Lenox Avenue in the second half of 1935, suggesting that D'Agostino may have reopened after the disorder, but not another business that could have been operated by Apuzzo. The Tax Department photograph of the address in 1939-1941 also showed a market, with a beauty parlor and a business that cannot be identified.
Jack Stern's store looted Jack Stern's store 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: $308.72. Two other businesses at the same address were also looted and appear among those whose owners made claims for losses, Michael D'Agostino's food market and a store owned by Sam Apuzzo. 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.

The only evidence of the looting was the store's appearance 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. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. Stern was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that process, nor did he appear in any of the trials to resolve claims. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this store.

The claim for $308.72 in losses was one of the smaller claims reported in the press, well below the median claim of $733. The city lost the court cases, so Stern likely was awarded some amount of damages, but based on those cases it was only a small proportion. It is not clear if he was able to remain in business. The MCCH business survey did include a white-owned food market at 348 Lenox Avenue in the second half of 1935, suggesting that D'Agostino may have reopened after the disorder, but not another business that could have been operated by Stern. The Tax Department photograph of the address in 1939-1941 also showed a market, with a beauty parlor and a business that cannot be identified.
Radio City Meat Market looted The Radio City Meat Market at 313 Lenox Avenue was looted during the disorder. There were no details of those events other than the amount of the owner's claim for damages: $759.58. The store was on the block immediately north of the intersection of West 125th Street and Lenox Avenue, an area that was the site of multiple acts of violence and attacks on businesses during the disorder. Crowds would have first broken windows in the store sometime after 10.30 PM, when a group of men robbed Toby’s Men’s shop on the northwest corner of 125th Street and Lenox Avenue and before 11:20 PM, when a patrolman arrived at the shoe store a block to the north to find smashed windows and merchandise missing from the display. Groups continued to sporadically break windows, take merchandise and occasionally attack whites they encountered on the streets for the next three hours. No one arrested for looting was identified as having taken goods from this market.

The only evidence of the looting was the store's appearance 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. The meat market was one of three business where the business name was identified rather than the owner's name. The only other information provided was the address and the amount of the claim. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. The meat market was not mentioned in newspaper stories about that proceeding, nor was it the subject of any of the trials to resolve claims.

The claim for $759.58 in losses was close to the median claim of $733, in line with claims of significant damage made by other business-owners in the immediate area: $14,000 at George Chronis' restaurant at 319 Lenox Avenue; and $14,125 at Harry Piskin's laundry at 100 West 125th Street. The city lost the court cases, so the store owner likely was awarded some amount of damages, but based on those cases it was only a small proportion. Whatever the award, the store appeared to have been able to remain in business. The MCCH business survey included the Radio City Meat Market at 313 Lenox Avenue in the second half of 1935. The business also appeared in the Tax Department photograph from 1939-1941.
Irving Guberman's store looted Irving Guberman's store at 60 West 129th Street was looted during the disorder. There are no details of those events other than the amount of the owner's claim for damages: $3,967. A second business at the same address, owned by Samuel Mestetzky, was also looted, with losses claimed of $5,860.50. The address is part of a seven-story building that occupied the southeast corner of Lenox Avenue and West 129th Street.

The only evidence of the looting was the store's appearance in lists of the first twenty white business-owners suing the city for damages published in the New York Sun, New York World-Telegram, New York American and New York Amsterdam News. By the time the city Comptroller heard testimony from those bringing suit, 106 owners had sought damages. Guberman was not among those whose testimony appeared in newspaper stories about that proceeding, nor did he appear in any of the trials to test the claims. No one among those arrested for looting was identified as taking goods from this store.

The claim for $3,967 in losses is the fifth largest detailed in the newspaper stories, well above the median claim of $733. The city lost the test cases, so Guberman likely was awarded some amount of damages, but based on those case it was likely only a small proportion. It is not clear if he was able to remain in business. The MCCH business survey included three stores operating at 60 West 129th Street in the second half of 1935, a white-owned stationary store, and two black-owned business, a barber and a tailor's shop. Either Guberman or Mestetzky could have owned the stationary store; the newspaper stories did not identify their businesses. The Tax Department photograph was taken from too far away to identify the businesses at the address in 1939-1941.
Irving Stetkin's store looted Irving Stetkin's store at 363 Lenox Avenue was looted during the disorder. Stetkin also owned a stationary store in the same block, at 371 Lenox Avenue, that was also looted. He was in that store when a stone was thrown through its window, and seems likely to have fruitlessly waited there for police to protect the business.

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 stationary 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 stationary 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.

Stetkin had sought $2068 for damage to the stationary 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 stationary store; there is no indication whether that statement also applied to the store at 363 Lenox Avenue. The MCCH business survey found two white-owned businesses at the address in the second half of 1935, a delicatessen and a stationary store, but there is no evidence of their owners in the survey or in the Tax Department photograph from 1939-1941.