78 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir.1996). To be admissible, therefore, alleged hearsay evidence must be defined as non-hearsay or fall within one of the accepted exceptions to the general exclusionary rale. See Rules 802, 803, 804 and 807, Fed.R.Evid. The plaintiffs first response to the defendants’ challenge is procedural. She argues that Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not a proper basis for their motion to strike the Letter. The plaintiffs argument in this regard is summarily rejected because a Rule 12(f) motion to strike hearsay evidence in a party’s opposition to summary judgment is a proper method for challenging such evidence. See In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litigation, Nos. MDL-765, CIV 87-987, 1990 WL 126500 at *34 (D.Ariz. July 26, 1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Jeannie Ferrell v. Masland Carpets,
holding that hearsay evidence is not acceptable in opposing a summary judgment motion holding that hearsay statement did not constitute competent evidence and thus could not be considered in opposition to motion for summary judgment holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived recognizing motion to strike as proper vehicle for evaluating objectionable hearsay evidence in opposition papers to summary judgment motion