Plaintiff established a prima facie right to recover under the guaranty by presentation of evidence regarding the execution thereof and defendants' failure to pay in accordance therewith (Banner Indus. v Key B.H. Assocs., 170 A.D.2d 246). Defendants' contention that the Partnership Agreement was modified by the decision in July 1989 to borrow, rather than make an additional equity investment, without their consent is frivolous as each had a direct or indirect significant interest in the partnership, and each personally guaranteed the borrowing. The interrelationship of the partners and guarantors is readily apparent (see, Marine Midland Bank v Smith, 482 F. Supp. 1279, affd 636 F.2d 1202). Further, even if there were no consent at the time of the loan, defendants were not discharged from their guaranty as there was neither change in the underlying obligation nor a showing of a material increase in the bargained-for risk (see, Smith v Molleson, 148 N.Y. 241). Indeed, any such defense had been waived by the language of the irrevocable and unconditional guaranty (see, Banco Portugues do Atlantico v Asland, S.A., 745 F. Supp. 962). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.