Plaintiff made out a prima facie case on the notes by proof of them and of the failure to make the payments called for (Seaman-Andwall
Corp. v. Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136). Thus, it was entitled to summary judgment unless the opposing papers raised genuine
factual issues (Leumi Fin. Corp. v. Richter, 24 A.D.2d 855, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 166; Stagg Tool & Die Corp. v. Weisman, 12
A.D.2d 99, 102). Plaintiff took the assignment in July, 1969 and did not receive notice of any defenses against its assignor
until October, 1969. It took the notes for value, in good faith and without any notice of any defenses against its assignor.
Accordingly, it is a holder in due course, not subject to most defenses relating to the underlying contract, and is entitled
to summary judgment (Uniform Commercial Code, Â§ 3-302, subd. ; Â§ 3-305; Credit Alliance Corp. v. Buffalo Linen Supply Co.,
238 App. Div. 18). Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment against the individual defendants on their purported guarantee
of the notes because the defense of fraud in the inducement has been raised and defendants have pleaded facts tending to establish
that defense. Such defense is available against a holder in due course (Uniform Commercial Code, Â§ 3-305, subd. , par.
[c]; First Nat. Bank of Odessa v. Fazzari, 10 N.Y.2d 394, 397). Disposition Order modified, on the law, by inserting therein, immediately after the provision that the motion "is denied",
the following: "except that it is granted to the extent of the first cause of action insofar as it is against defendant Bon
Bon Cleaners Corp. (on the notes)". As so modified, order affirmed, without costs.