ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that issues of fact preclude the award of summary judgment to the plaintiff on his first cause of action (see Amusement Business Underwriters v. American Intl. Group, 66 N.Y.2d 878; Reiner v. Wenig, 269 A.D.2d 379). The auditing agreement dated July 8, 1994, is ambiguous as to whether the parties intended the defendants to be compensated for the services rendered to the plaintiff.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court correctly sustained the defendants' counterclaim to recover damages based on unjust enrichment. The plaintiff may not deny the existence of a contract to support his motion for summary judgment, and then invoke that very contract as a means to avoid quasi-contractual liability (see Wilmoth v. Sandor, 259 A.D.2d 252, 254; Curtis Props. Corp. v. Greif Cos., 236 A.D.2d 237, 239). As there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence and scope of a contract, the defendant may proceed on theories of breach of contract and quantum meruit (see Breslin Realty Dev. Corp. v. 112 Leaseholds, 270 A.D.2d 299).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.