Summary judgment in lieu of complaint was properly granted with regard to defendants Hom, Ng, Liu and Wang since each signed an unconditional personal guarantee and failed to make payment upon proper demand (see, Rhodia, Inc. v. Steel, 32 A.D.2d 753). Moreover, the asserted defenses of fraud in the inducement and lack of consideration fail to create issues of fact since said defenses were insufficiently substantiated (see, Sterling Natl. Bank Trust Co. v. I.S.A. Merchandising Corp., 91 A.D.2d 571). Indeed, Liu's claim of ignorance of the English language is belied by, inter alia, the fact that he is clearly an experienced businessman who has conducted many negotiations with U.S. merchants. While defendants also claim that other documents, including a credit agreement and a promissory note which were executed at the same closing as the guarantee, should have been consulted before determining the intent of the instant guarantee, the guarantee was unambiguous and its intent is clearly evidenced from the contract itself (see, Chimart Assocs. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570, 572-573). We also note that the parties and purposes of the other documents were different from those of the guarantee and that the other documents did not express any intent to limit the guarantee (cf., BWA Corp. v. Alltrans Express U.S.A., 112 A.D.2d 850, 852).
However, the court failed to properly calculate the interest owed by defendants. The contract provides that interest is to be paid on all obligations, not merely on the contractual limit of liability as to principal of $260,000 under the guarantee (see, Bank of China v. Chan, 937 F.2d 780, 790). Accordingly, interest should be calculated upon the total indebtedness of $524,228.60.
We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.