Conversely, such actions are barred where the parties have entered into a contract "the scope of which clearly covers the dispute between the parties." (Id. at p. 389; see also Cox v. NAP Constr. Co., Inc. (2008) 10 N.Y.3d 592, 607 ["a party may not recover in quantum meruit or unjust enrichment where the parties have entered into a contract that governs the subject matter"]; Goldman v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. (2005) 5 N.Y.3d 561, 572; Fyrdman & Co. v. Credit Suisse First Boston (2000) 708 N.Y.S.2d 77; cf. Sterlacci v. Gurfein (2005) 794 N.Y.S.2d 362.) Here, the court found on undisputed facts that the parties' dispute is within the scope of their contract.

Here, plaintiff's own deposition testimony establishes that defendant did not consent to the alleged loan agreement. The court also properly denied that part of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on the first cause of action, for money had and received ( cf. Sterlacci v Gurfein, 18 AD3d 229, 230). The court erred, however, in granting that part of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, and we therefore modify the order accordingly.

Plaintiff cannot recover damages under the quasi-contract claims, including unjust enrichment and conversion, if the parties entered into a contract which covered the same subject matter (Krigsfeld v Feldman, 115 AD3d 712, 982 NYS2d 487 [2d Dept 2014]). However, as an issue of fact exists as to whether there was a contract, plaintiff's claims of unjust enrichment and conversion survive the motion for summary judgment (Sterlacci v Gurfein, 18 AD3d 229, 794 NYS2d 362 [1st Dept 2005]; Basu v Alphabet Mgt. LLC, 127 AD3d 450, 8 NYS3d 273 [1st Dept 2015]). Accordingly, the causes of action alleging fraud and punitive damages are dismissed.

Moreover, it has been held that recovery for unjust enrichment is barred if there is a valid and enforceable contract between the parties (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 521 NYS2d 653 [1987]; Whitman Realty Group v Galano, supra; Stark v City of New York, 31 AD3d 530, 818 NYS2d 281 [2d Dept 2006]). As a triable issues exist regarding the enforceability of the subject documents, summary judgment on the ground of unjust enrichment is denied (see Sterlacci v Gurfein, 18 AD3d 229, 794 NYS2d 362 [1st Dept 2005]; Carriafielio-Diehl & Assocs. v D & M Elec. Contr., 12 AD3d 478, 784 NYS2d 617 [2d Dept 2004]).

the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered" (Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v State of New York, 30 NY2d 415, 421, 334 NYS2d 388 [1972], certificate. denied 414 US 829, 94 S Ct 57 [1973]; seeWhitman Realty Group v Galano, 41 AD3d 590, 838 NYS2d 585 [2d Dept 2007]). However, it has been held that recovery for unjust enrichment is barred if there is a valid and enforceable contract between the parties (seeClark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 521 NYS2d 653 [1987]; Whitman Realty Group v Galano, supra; Stark v City of New York, 31 AD3d 530, 818 NYS2d 281 [2d Dept 2006]). Nonetheless, where the enforceability of the agreement is in question, or the contract does not cover the dispute in issue, a cause of action for unjust enrichment based in quasi-contract can be maintained (seeMcGimpsey v J. Robert Folchetti & Assoc., LLC, 19 AD3d 658, 798 NYS2d 498 [2d Dept 2005]; see alsoPlumitallo v Hudson Atl. Land Co., LLC, 74 AD3d 1038, 903 NYS2d 127 [2d Dept 2010]; Sterlacci v Gurfein, 18 AD3d 229, 794 NYS2d 362 [1st Dept 2005]).

Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 182 (2011); Abacus Fed. Sav. Bank v. Lim, 75 A.D.3d 472, 473 (1st Dep't 2010). See Sterlacci v. Gurfein, 18 A.D.3d 229, 230 (1st Dep't 2005); Wiener v. Lazard Freres & Co., 241 A.D.2d 114, 119 (1st Dep't 1998). To sustain an unjust enrichment claim plaintiff also must also demonstrate a relationship with defendants that caused plaintiff's reliance or induced its performance.

Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 182 (2011); Abacus Fed. Sav. Bank v. Lim, 75 A.D.3d 472, 473 (1st Dep't 2010). See Sterlacci v. Gurfein, 18 A.D.3d 229, 230 (1st Dep't 2005); Wiener v. Lazard Freres & Co., 241 A.D.2d 114, 119 (1st Dep't 1998). Again, the complaint alleges facts that establish an unjust enrichment claim: that defendants were enriched at plaintiffs' expense by accepting his services and profiting from the contracts, so that it would be against equity and good conscience to allow defendants to retain those benefits.

Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d at 182; Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v. Rieder, 86 A.D.3d 406, 408 (1st Dep't 2011); Abacus Fed. Sav. Bank v. Lim, 75 A.D.3d 472, 473 (1st Dep't 2010). See Sterlacci v. Gurfein, 18 A.D.3d 229, 230 (1st Dep't 2005); Wiener v, Lazard Freres & Co., 241 A.D.2d 114, 119 (1st Dep't 1998). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any benefit to defendant was at plaintiff's expense.