This page was created by Anonymous.
William Feinstein's liquor store looted
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, with no details of what happened to Feinstein’s store 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, 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 is no evidence of the outcome of the case.
This page has tags:
This page references:
- Washington Heights Magistrates Court docket book
- New York Penal Law, § 1298-1299: Petit Larceny
- District Attorney's Closed Case Files, 204145 (1935) (New York City Municipal Archives).
- "City Must Pay Loss of Dealer in Riot," New York Times, September 21, 1935, 17.
- "Verdict of $450 Won By Victim of Harlem Riot," New York World-Telegram, September 20, 1935 [clipping].
- "Claim $38,000 Riot Damages," New York Sun, April 23, 1935 [clipping]
- "2d Damage Suit Lost by City in Harlem Rioting," New York Herald Tribune, October 16, 1935 [clipping]
- "Harlem Riot Case is Lost By the City," New York Times, November 1, 1935, 22.
- "City Sued on Damage Done in Harlem Riot," New York Times, September 20, 1935, 23.
- [Photograph] "Police stand guard at this liquor store, protecting the few bottles that remain after rioters tore down an iron grill and smashed windows," New York World-Telegram, March 20, 1935, 3.
- "Harlem Riot May Cost $1,000,000," New York American, September 21, 1935 [clipping].
- Feinstein v. City of New York, 157 Misc 157 (1935)
- "City Sued for Damage Done in Harlem Riot," Home News, September 19, 1935 [clipping].
- "Jury Gives $450 For Damages in Harlem Riots," New York Herlad Tribune, September 21, 1935
- "City Loses Plea to Void Suit for Riot Damages," New York Herald Tribune, November 1, 1935,