DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the causes of action to recover damages based on quantum meruit and for unjust enrichment by submitting evidence that the parties entered into a written agreement that defined their relationship. In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted only conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations that a separate oral agreement existed between the parties. This was insufficient to defeat that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment on these two causes of action (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The existence of an express agreement, whether oral or written, governing a particular subject matter precludes recovery in quasi-contract for events arising out of the same subject matter (see Clark-Fitzpatrick v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 388; Bradkin v. Leverton, 26 N.Y.2d 192, 196; Miller v. Schloss, 218 N.Y. 400, 407).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and CRANE, JJ., concur.