Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in an action to recover on two corporate guaranty agreements, the individual defendant Jarmusz contended that each guaranty was no more than a promise by the corporation to pay its account and that he signed each agreement in a representative capacity. Supreme Court's summary rejection of that contention was proper. Each document is entitled "GUARANTY" and contains clear and unambiguous language that the debt of the corporate debtor is personally guaranteed, and the guarantor is identified as the individual defendant, Jarmusz (see, Crisafulli Bros. v Kilmartin, 100 A.D.2d 678; Sullivan County Wholesalers v. Cornwall Constr. Co., 90 A.D.2d 914). The addition of the word "Pres." underneath Jarmusz's signature is merely descriptive and does not affect his personal liability on the guaranty (see, Chemical Bank v. Kaufman, 142 A.D.2d 526, 527).