This page is referenced by:

• 1 2022-12-08T21:35:21+00:00 In the Municipal court on October 16 (1) 23 plain 2023-12-17T01:27:24+00:00 Anna Rosenberg's claim for damages was resolved in the Municipal Court almost a month after the trial of William Feinstein's claim. She owned a notion store, on Lenox Avenue a block south of Feinstein's liquor store, that was looted and set on fire. Who represented her is unknown, but she was not one of the business owners identified as clients of Barney Rosenstein. The city was represented by Aaron Arnold, the same corporation counsel lawyer who had appeared in the Feinstein trial. The trial took place before Judge Rosalsky and a jury, who awarded her $804. What Rosenberg claimed is unknown, but the award was 82% of her insurance company's appraisal of her losses, $980.13. Both the total award and proportion of the claim were greater than the jury verdict in the Feinstein case, likely because of the fire in Rosenberg's store. If that was the case, it represented less of a precedent than the first trial, as only two other businesses were reportedly set on fire.
  
  The trial of the second damages claim appeared to have attracted fewer newspaper stories than the first trial. Only the New York Herald Tribune, Home News, New York American, Times Union, and New York Age published an account of the trial, with the latter three stories not reporting any testimony. All the stories mentioned the $804 award to Rosenberg. The insurance appraisal appeared only in the New York Herald Tribune and Home News.
  
  Royal Insurance, with whom Rosenberg had a policy, was also mentioned as a party to the case by the New York Herald Tribune, Home News, and Times Union. The three stories described Royal Insurance as co-defendant with the city, but the basis for the liability of the two parties as at odds: if the disorder was a riot, the city was liable under the General Municipal law, but the insurance company was not, as its policies excluded riots. When lawyers for Royal Insurance argued that a riot had caused the damage, Arnold "denied that there had been riots in the legal meaning of the term," according to the New York Herald Tribune and Home News, and asserted that it was a coincidence that the fire in the store occurred on the date of the disorder. Those stories described Arnold responding to the arguments of the insurance company by asking for a mistrial, and later filing a motion to have the verdict set aside. Neither story specified the grounds for the motion; the Times Union reported the argument that the fire's timing was a coincidence as the grounds. Whatever its basis, Rosalsky denied the motion.
  
  Evidence in the form of testimony from two witnesses was described by the New York Herald Tribune and Home News. Anna Rosenberg provided details of the damage done to her store during the disorder, but not how it had occurred as she had not been present at the time. Evidence of the circumstances of the damage came from the testimony of Herbert Cantor, who owned a pharmacy five doors from Rosenberg's notion store. He had not seen the fire started, but described crowds throwing objects through windows and carrying merchandise he assumed was stolen.
  
  The number of claims still pending in court was mentioned in the New York Herald Tribune, Home News, New York Age, and New York American The first three stories reported 160 cases pending in the Municipal Court alone (claims for large sums were tried in the Supreme Court), with only the New York Herald Tribune attributing that number to Arnold, the corporation counsel lawyer, together with his description of those cases as "mostly for small sums." That total is larger than the 106 cases reported in July. There was no explanation for the discrepancy. By contrast, the New York American reported 104 other claims pending, which fits the number from July. The story gave no source for that information, which may have derived from the earlier information rather than Arnold.