Order reversed, with *947costs, and verdict reinstated, with costs. Held, the verdict seems to have been set aside upon the ground that the court erred in excluding the unsworn statement of the infant plaintiff. We think that evidence was properly excluded. (See Gavrilutz v. Savage, 166 A.D. 309" court="N.Y. App. Div." date_filed="1915-02-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/gavrilutz-v-savage-5235908?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5235908">166 App. Div. 309; Stoppiek v. Goldstein, 174 id. 306.) All concurred.