The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York ruled against Ardsley Waterwheel Partners, LLC (AWP) in a case involving damages to a condominium complex. The court decided that AWP could not pursue claims against Westchester County due to a prior release agreement. This ruling affects AWP and its principals, who were seeking to recover costs related to alleged negligence in a construction project.
The dispute centers around a construction project for the Waterwheel Condominium, where AWP was the developer. The condominium board claimed that AWP's work caused damage to their property. As a result, the board filed a lawsuit against AWP and its principals, Conrad J. Roncati and Matthew Perasso, in June 2021. In response, AWP filed a third-party complaint against Westchester County, seeking indemnification and contribution for the damages claimed by the condominium board.
The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court of Westchester County granted a motion from Westchester County to dismiss AWP's third-party complaint. The county argued that AWP's claims were barred by a release agreement made in connection with the construction project. This release was intended to resolve disputes related to the project, and the county maintained that it precluded AWP from pursuing further claims.
On August 5, 2026, the Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decision. The court stated, "A valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release." The judges involved in this decision included Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Lillian Wan, Laurence L. Love, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez. The ruling confirmed that the release AWP entered into with the county was valid and effectively barred the claims for common-law indemnification and contribution.
This ruling has significant implications for AWP and similar entities involved in construction projects. The court's decision reinforces the importance of release agreements in legal disputes. It highlights that parties cannot pursue claims if they have previously agreed to release those claims through a contract. This ruling may deter developers from attempting to seek additional compensation after signing such agreements.
Going forward, the decision sets a precedent for how release agreements are interpreted in New York. It emphasizes that once a release is in place, it can prevent further legal action related to the same issue. This case serves as a reminder for developers and contractors to carefully consider the implications of any release agreements they enter into.
As for what’s next, AWP has the option to appeal this decision to a higher court. However, details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence similar disputes involving construction projects and release agreements in the future.