in Miller v. Schloss.”) (internal citation omitted). 4 . Indeed, the existence of a written agreement has already been held by a number of courts in this Circuit to bar a constructive trust. See, e.g., Briggs v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 F.Supp.2d 228, 236-37 (W.D.N.Y.1999) ("Where there exists a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter, quasi contractual claims, including claims for unjust enrichment and constructive trust are not allowed.... Settled law indicates that the equitable claims of unjust enrichment and constructive trust are unavailable where plaintiffs have rights under a valid and enforceable contract.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); In re Stylesite Mktg., Inc., 253 B.R. 503, 507-508 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>); cf. Cherno v. Dutch Am. Mercantile Corp., 353
holding that quasicontractual relief is unavailable where an express contract covers the subject matter holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that the existence of a valid contract bars the imposition of a constructive trust because quasicontractual claims such an unjust enrichment are not permitted if a written contract between the parties governs the subject matter of their dispute