This page is referenced by:

• 1 2022-12-08T21:34:56+00:00 In the Municipal court on September 19 & 20 (1) 68 plain 2024-01-26T19:12:58+00:00 It took until September 19 for the first of the claims for damages to come to trial. William Feinstein, the plaintiff, owned a liquor store at 452 Lenox Avenue, for which he filed a claim for $627.40 in damages. He was not one of the business owners represented by Barney Rosenstein; Charles Garfinkel was his attorney, according to the Home News. (However, the New York Herald Tribune did note that, “In many cases the property owners have banded together, retaining a single lawyer and filing suits on blanket complaints.”) The trial took place over two days in the Municipal Court, before Judge Shalleck and a jury of six men. After only forty-five minutes of deliberation, the jury awarded Feinstein $450, just over 70% of his claim.
  
  The newspaper stories about the case highlighted that the outcome of the case could set a precedent for other damage claims after the disorder amounting to $1 million. That was almost ten times the $116,000 reported as the total value of the claims in July. None of the stories provided any explanation for that dramatic jump. In fact, the $1 million total was not attributed to any source in stories in the New York Herald Tribune, New York Post, New York Sun, and Daily News and in the Black newspapers the New York Amsterdam News and Afro-American. (A New York Age editorial that included few details of the case stated more vaguely that additional claims would "cost the city administration a pretty penny.") Other stories attributed the number to Judge Shalleck, with the New York Times quoting him as telling the jury when he discharged them, "I understand that there is possibly $1,000,000 in such suits now pending against the city." The New York American published a similar quotation, while the Times Union, New York World-Telegram, and Home News paraphrased Shalleck's statement. It seems likely that the corporation counsel or city officials had supplied him with that information, as the New York Times also quoted Mayor La Guardia making the same claim, in his response to the verdict: "That award opens the way to claims against the city amounting to $1,000,000." A paraphrase of that statement appeared in the Daily News. The stories in the New York Herald Tribune, New York American, New York Sun, and New York Age that reported a response from the mayor did not include that statement; the Times Union, New York World-Telegram, New York Amsterdam News, New York Post, and Home News did not mention La Guardia at all. The corporation counsel lawyers' denial that the case was a test case was reported only in the New York Times. The story dismissed their statement that "each of the many suits growing out of the Harlem riot would be tried on its own merits" by pointing out that "five members of the city's legal staff were present," implying that was far more than was typical for such a trial.
  
  Only the New York Post made clear the questions the jury had to decide: "Was there a riot on March 20? Was the plaintiff's property damaged? Did the plaintiff use all reasonable diligence to prevent damage to his property?" Only the New York Times reported any of the evidence related to those questions presented during trial. A story on the first day of the trial highlighted cross-examination by the corporation counsel that "brought out that, despite the disturbances in the neighborhood, [the store manager] had made no attempt to remove the bottles of liquor from the show windows." That issue featured again in the newspaper's story on the second day, which mentioned that the manager testified he had been "too frightened to know what to do about it." Fright was "a reasonable factor," the judge instructed the jury, undermining the efforts of the city's lawyers to present the manager's inaction as contributing to the damage done by looting. Likely helped by that guidance, the six-man jury took only forty-five minutes to reach a verdict, according to the New York World-Telegram.
  
  Judge Shalleck supported the jury's verdict. Discharging them, he said "from the facts of the case I don't think you could have done anything else." The stories in New York Times, New York Post, New York Herald Tribune, and New York World-Telegram quoted that statement, while the New York Sun and Times Union simply stated that he approved the verdict. Shalleck's support was omitted from the brief stories in the Daily News, New York American, and New York Amsterdam News. The New York American did quote extensively the judge's comments about the law under which the claim was made: "The Legislature enacted this law placing property damage in riots on the county and city to inspire citizens to proper vigilance in support of law and order. It is a punishment for permitting riots. The law is drastic and may be changed at the next session." The New York Post and New York World-Telegram added, "In the meantime, it should be a lesson to our people not to be too eager to incite riots and not to lose their heads too quickly." The New York Herald Tribune and New York Sun only quoted that sentence and the one about the law being drastic. Those two publications also quoted the judge's comments about the riot itself, that "another element came into the scene and incited riot, although the City of New York tried every conservative way of stopping the disturbance without bloodshed." By including the passage, the publications were returning to the focus on the Communists as responsible for the disorder, notwithstanding the evidence at the MCCH hearings. While the New York Sun did not make that connection explicit, the New York Herald Tribune did: "his remark was accepted as referring to Communists."
  
  The corporation counsel responded to the verdict by filing a motion to have it set aside. Stories in the New York Times, New York World-Telegram, New York Sun, and New York Amsterdam News mentioned only the motion, not the basis for it. Details were provided in the New York Herald Tribune, New York American, and New York Post: all three stories reported the motion argued that the date on the complaint was wrong, and that the events were not a riot. The New York Post reported an additional argument that Feinstein's staff did not do everything they could to avoid damage, whereas the New York Herald Tribune reported that Feinstein had failed to give notice to the mayor and sheriff of the disorder, and the New York American that he "advanced technical points." Other than the error in the complaint, the issues raised by the motion were typical of defenses offered against claims under such municipal laws. The Times Union and Daily News did not mention the motion. Shalleck reserved his decision on the motion and gave parties two days to give him information related to it.
  
  Only some of the stories included Mayor La Guardia's response to the decision. "If this decision is allowed to stand, it will be a very serious matter for the city. It would open up a new form of arson," the New York Herald Tribune and New York Sun quoted him as saying. Asked to clarify that remark, the mayor added that the decision "would encourage property owners to stir up trouble with the express purpose of having their premises burned or damaged so that the city could be made to pay for repairs or valueless stock." The New York Times quoted only the clarifying statement: “If it were permitted we would have deliberate attempts to start trouble so that someone could collect from the city. We simply cannot allow the law to stand." The Daily News and New York American noted only that the mayor said the city would appeal. The other stories on the trial did not include La Guardia's response. The mayor's concern with arson was not derived from the events of the disorder: only four fires were reported, one reason why the damage was not as great as in Chicago in 1919 or East St Louis in 1917.
  
  Missing from the stories are details of the evidence presented to support Feinstein's claim. Only the New York Times story included the store manager's evidence discussed above, and that was the only evidence mentioned. Moreover, stories in the Daily News, New York American, New York Herald Tribune, New York World-Telegram and Times Union incorrectly gave the address of Feinstein's store as Lexington Avenue rather than Lenox Avenue. The only details of the testimony are those included in Shalleck's published decision on the city's motion.