Although plaintiffs maintain that their client referral fee was not calculated in accordance with the parties' contract, the motion court correctly concluded that, under the unambiguous terms of the contract (see, e.g., Kass v. Kass, 91 N.Y.2d 554, 566), defendant properly computed the amount of plaintiffs' referral fee as a percentage only of amounts invested with defendant by investors introduced by plaintiff Sheiffer, and not of all amounts invested in the subject investment fund. Thus, there were no genuine issues of fact to be resolved at trial and the grant of summary judgment to defendants was proper (see, Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361, 364). We note in this connection that the existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing the disputed subject matter precludes plaintiffs from recovering in quantum meruit (see, Aviv Constr., Inc. v. Antiquarium, Ltd., 259 A.D.2d 445, 446, citing Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 388).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.