Opinion
February 2, 1990
Appeal from the Court of Claims, Quigley, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, defendant's motion granted and claim dismissed. Memorandum: The Court of Claims erred in rendering judgment for claimant on the theory that the State breached an implied contract of employment. Claimant admitted that he knew that the president of the college alone had authority to approve his proposed contract of employment but that the approval was never given. Further, there is no evidence that claimant was in any manner misled regarding that contract procedure. Additionally, even if the Court of Claims was correct in finding that an implied contract in fact was established, the failure of the State Comptroller to approve the contract pursuant to State Finance Law § 112 operates as a bar to claimant's recovery (see, Parsa v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 143, 148, rearg denied 64 N.Y.2d 885). No claim is made that claimant performed services for which he is entitled to recover in an action for monies had and received (see, Parsa v State of New York, supra, at 148). Consequently, claimant's claim must be dismissed. While harsh in result, to hold otherwise "would completely frustrate statutes designed to protect the public from governmental misconduct or improvidence" (Parsa v State of New York, supra, at 147).