Glenn S. Schechtman v. Board Education City New York

In our opinion, the admission of said matter into evidence was prejudicial error (cf. Rothman v. City of New York, 273 App. Div. 780; former Civ. Prac. Act, § 348). Even if pertinent portions thereof were admissible at plaintiffs' behest, the portions thereof which were patently hearsay were not admissible (former Civ. Prac. Act, § 305; Cudlip v. New York Evening Journal Pub. Co., 180 N. Y. 85; Katona v. Jennings, 3 A.D.2d 642). Plaintiffs' attorney read, to classmates