Plaintiffs decided not to complete testing of the equipment before signing an agreement that included a specific and express representation that they evaluated the entire system and its adequacy for their purposes. This was a failure of ordinary care that precludes plaintiffs' demand for rescission, whether the basis is mutual mistake (see,Williamson Cent. School Dist. v. E L Piping, 261 A.D.2d 937, 938, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 816) or unilateral mistake (see, Morey v. Sings, 174 A.D.2d 870, 872). Since a valid contract exists governing the subject matter in dispute, the cause of action for unjust enrichment is untenable (see, G S Custom Homes v. Holtz, 179 A.D.2d 1025, 1026). Plaintiffs' argument that summary judgment should be denied while further discovery is conducted is without merit (see, Bailey v. New York City Tr. Auth., 270 A.D.2d 156, 157).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.