accusation that it “sparked a change in attitude in defendants regarding the attractiveness of hiring Sabbath observers” is also unsupported in the record. (PL’s Mem. of Law at 18, 19). Plaintiff presents no evidence that Dr. Canter related any disagreement that he had with Dr. Eckstein to Drs. Epstein and Dr. Berenstein, who were the primary decision-makers in selecting doctors to accompany them to Beth Israel. Moreover, Dr. Jacobson denied ever hearing Dr. Brous make these alleged disparaging comments. (Jacobson Tr. at 24). Plaintiff’s testimony to the contrary is inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 802 and, therefore, cannot be used to withstand a summary judgment motion. See Finnegan v. Board of Educ. of the Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 30 F.3d 273, 274 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Dr. Epstein disavowed suggesting
holding that there was no prejudice when evidence complained of would have been admissible against defendant in separate trial holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that hearsay statement would not have been admissible at trial and hence was insufficient to create a genuine issue to be tried holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial