dismissed, and allegations four through eight must be submitted to the trier-of-fact. S. Unjust Enrichment In this claim, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have been benefited by the improvements which Plaintiffs have made to the property, and that, absent compensation to the Plaintiffs, Defendants will be unjustly enriched. It is established that “the existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi-contract [ie., unjust enrichment] for events arising out of the same subject matter.” MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Group Equip. Fin., Inc., 157 F.3d 956, 964 (2d Cir.1998) (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also City of Yonkers v. Otis Elevator Co., 844 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Agreement specifically addresses
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 holding that the law will not imply a contract where there is an existing express contract covering the same subject matter holding that consideration for a contract as a whole covers the arbitration clause holding that quasicontractual relief is unavailable where an express contract covers the subject matter holding that an arbitration clause encompassing all disputes under a contract covers any dispute between the parties that has a significant relationship to the contract