In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of the alleged negligent operation of an automobile by the defendant, judgment for plaintiff reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Except as to that part of defendant's Exhibit B for identification which states "but evidently, after a day of beer wine drinking, he was somehow involved in an auto accident," the exclusion of the other portions of the hospital records (Defendant's Exhibits B and C for Identification) was erroneous. Hospital records are to be admitted in evidence pursuant to section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act. ( Meiselman v. Crown Heights Hospital, 285 N.Y. 389, 396, 397.) Lazansky, P.J., Carswell and Taylor, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., concurs in result, being of opinion that Exhibit B, as a hospital record, should have been admitted in its entirety under the doctrine enunciated in Meiselman v. Crown Heights Hospital ( supra). Close, J., dissents and votes to affirm on the ground that certain portions of both Exhibits B and C were incompetent, and that certain other portions which may have been competent were not separately offered.