Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs properly commenced this action based on an instrument for the payment of money only as a motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213). Special Term denied the motion, finding that the affidavits established substantial triable issues of fact. We agree. Execution of the note and default in payment having been established by plaintiffs, and not being denied by defendants, it was incumbent on defendants to come forward with proof of evidentiary facts showing the existence of a genuine and substantial issue (Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136, 137-138, affd 29 N.Y.2d 617; Mills v Ryan, 41 A.D.2d 689, 690). We find that defendants have presented sufficient evidentiary proof with respect to the alleged acts and misrepresentations of plaintiffs concerning the wrongful assignment of the note, an inventory discrepancy, improper use of the name and logo of Burke Steel Service Center, among others, which, if true, militate against the granting of the relief requested (Crompton-Richmond Co. v Peterson, 40 A.D.2d 646; Century Constr. Corp. v Friedman, 40 A.D.2d 1033; Empire Brushes v Gantz, 40 A.D.2d 974). Only the trial process can assay the truth of these defenses. On this presentation there are too many crosscurrents and too many mixed questions of law and fact even to warrant the granting of partial summary judgment.