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

"Harlem Riot Claims," New York American, April 24, 1935 [clipping].

In the New York American

This page is referenced by:

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 Amsterdam News and the New York Sun, which published the longest story, included a list of the twenty claimants, the address of their businesses, and the amount of their claims. 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."
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.
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 outcomes 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 $1,610.64, one of just over a third of the owners who claimed more than $1,000. 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.
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: $1,610.64. 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 $1,610.64 in losses was above the median claim of $733, one of the just over a third of the claims that was for more than $1,000 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 cases, 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.
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 block of Lenox Avenue to the south saw extensive attacks on white-owned businesses. That violence likely started around 11:30 PM.

The only evidence of the looting is the store's appearance in a list of the first twenty white business-owners who sued 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 stationery store, and black-owned barber and tailor's shop. Either Mestetzky or Guberman could have owned the stationery 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.
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 was 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, what he likely 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 show a radio store and tailors store at the address.
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 block of Lenox Avenue to the south saw extensive attacks on white-owned businesses. That violence likely started around 11:30 PM.

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 cases, 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 businesses, 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.