On cross motions for summary judgment on complaint to recover alleged preferential payments, held,(1) the filing of cross motions for summary judgment does not require the granting of judgment for either movant as a matter of law because each motion must be considered on its own merits and all facts and inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; (2) that a reasonable trier of fact could not find in favor of defendant on its “ordinary course of business” defense, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to it as the non-moving party, where the defendant engaged in certain unusual collection activities against the debtor; (3) the defendant failed to carry its burden of proof by a mere preponderance that the transactions were made according to ordinary business terms; and (4) affidavits containing mere conclusory statements that transfers were made in the ordinary course of business are insufficient to prevail against the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.