This tag was created by Anonymous. 

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

In civil court on October 16

A month after the trial of William Feinstein's claim, before Judge Shalleck had published his decision on the city's motion to set aside the verdict, a second claim for damages was decided in the Municipal Court. The plaintiff who appeared on October 16, Anna Rosenberg, was, like Feinstein, not one of those identified earlier in the press nor was she represented by the attorney who filed those claims, Barney Rosenstein. She owned a notion store at 429 Lenox Avenue which had suffered damages that her insurer, the Royal Insurance Company, had appraised at $980.13. Rosenberg's lawsuit also sought payment of damages from the company, which had refused her claim on the grounds that the policy excluded losses resulting from a riot. That position put Royal Insurance at odds with the city as their defense shifted liability to the city. The Assistant Corporation Counsel who represented the city, Aaron Arnold, had also appeared in the trial of Feinstein's claim.

Like Feinstein, Anna Rosenberg had not been in her store when it was attacked. She had closed the business before crowds arrived in the area. Her testimony in the trial was therefore limited to the details of the damage done. Evidence of the cause of the damage was provided by Herbert Cantor, who owned a pharmacy five doors from Rosenberg's business. After learning of the disorder in Harlem on the evening of March 19, he had rushed to protect his store, arriving around 11:00 PM. He watched crowd "carrying bricks, stones and bottles, as well as canned goods march down the street," Cantor testified," shouting, "'Down with the whites! Let's get what we can,'" and hurling missiles through windows." Feinstein's store manager had described a similar crowd around his liquor store, which was a block north of Rosenberg's business. Cantor saw a fire break out in the notion store sometime between 11:00 PM and midnight, but could not see who started it. Missing from the reported testimony was any mention of the police, whether they were absent or ineffectual in controlling the crowd. Instead, the presence of the Royal Insurance Company appeared to have focused the attention of journalists at least on the question of whether a riot had occurred.

Attorneys for Royal Insurance argued that riot caused the damage to Rosenberg's business, while Arnold denied that a riot in the legal meaning had occurred and argued that outbreak of the fire at the time crowds were in the area was a coincidence. When attorneys for the insurance persisted in rejecting the city's position, as the New York Herald Tribune put it, Arnold called for a mistrial in response to insurance arguments. Judge Rosalsky rejected that motion. No other testimony was reported on behalf of Rosenberg, Royal Insurance, or the city.

This jury too awarded damages to Rosenberg in the sum of $804, 82% of the insurance valuation of damage, in the process of imposing liability on the city rather than the Royal Insurance company. Arnold filed a motion to set aside the verdict, as he had in Feinstein's trial. Judge Rosalsky, unlike Judge Shalleck, simply denied the motion, perhaps aware that his colleague was already drafting an opinion on the law that would be applied to this case as well — and to the 160 claims that Arnold said were pending in the Municipal Court, "mostly for small sums."

This page has paths:

Contents of this tag:

This page references: