As an initial matter, the court dismisses Urban's unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment claims. Where, as here, a written contract governs the parties' rights, an unjust enrichment claim cannot be maintained. (See MG W. 100 LLC v St. Michael's Prot. Episcopal Church, 127 AD3d 624, 626 [1st Dept 2015] ["the existence of . . . a valid and enforceable written agreement governing the parties dispute . . . precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter"], citing Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987].) Likewise, where, as here, the plaintiff seeks affirmative relief under a breach of contract claim that requires the court to resolve the very contractual interpretation dispute at issue in the declaratory judgment claim, the declaratory judgment claim should be dismissed. (See Cherry Hill Mkt. Corp. v Cozen O'Connor P.C., 118 AD3d 514, 515 [1st Dept 2014], citing Apple Records v Capitol Records, 137 AD2d 50, 54 [1st Dept 1988] ["A cause of action for a declaratory judgment is unnecessary and inappropriate when the plaintiff has an adequate, alternative remedy in another form of action, such as breach of contract"].)