DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
By the plaintiffs' own admissions, they were third-party beneficiaries of the contract between the defendant Hartstein Hartstein and the respondent Chase Manhattan Bank s/h/a Chase Manhattan Bank, successor in interest to Chemical Bank and Chemical Bank (hereinafter Chase). Since Chase owed no independent legal duty to the plaintiffs outside of this contractual relationship, the plaintiffs cannot maintain a cause of action sounding in negligence against it (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382; Layden v. Boccio, 253 A.D.2d 540). Additionally, a claim alleging unjust enrichment may not be maintained where there is a valid and express agreement between the parties which explicitly covers the same specific subject matter for which the implied agreement is sought (see Chadirjian v. Kanian, 123 A.D.2d 596; see also Clark-Fitzpatrick, supra).
The plaintiffs failed to establish any damages resulting from the alleged conversion of funds, so this claim was also properly dismissed (see McCall v. Leader, 268 A.D.2d 208; Tinsley v. State of New York, 192 A.D.2d 701).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.