BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE WATERWHEEL CONDOMINIUM v. County of Westchester, third-party defendant-respondent. (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for injury to real property and a related third-party action, inter alia, for common-law indemnification and contribution, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Charles D. Wood, J.), dated April 3, 2024.  The order granted the motion of the third-party defendant County of Westchester pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On May 8, 2013, in connection with a condominium construction project, Ardsley Waterwheel Partners, LLC (hereinafter AWP), entered into a contract with the County of Westchester for AWP, as developer, to perform infrastructure improvements with the County providing funding.  In June 2021, the plaintiff commenced this action against AWP and its principals, Conrad J. Roncati and Matthew Perasso (hereinafter collectively the AWP defendants), seeking to recover damages for injury to the condominium complex allegedly caused by negligently performed work.  The AWP defendants commenced a third-party action against, among others, the County, and the amended third-party complaint, inter alia, asserted third-party causes of action for common-law indemnification and contribution against the County.  Thereafter, the County moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it, arguing, among other things, that the third-party action was barred by a release.  In an order dated April 3, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the motion.  The AWP defendants appeal.

The Supreme Court properly granted the County's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it based upon a valid release.  “Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release” (Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 N.Y.3d 269, 276, 929 N.Y.S.2d 3, 952 N.E.2d 995 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Ivasyuk v. Raglan, 197 A.D.3d 635, 636, 153 N.Y.S.3d 110).  “A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law” (Kaminsky v. Gamache, 298 A.D.2d 361, 361, 751 N.Y.S.2d 254;  see Ivasyuk v. Raglan, 197 A.D.3d at 636, 153 N.Y.S.3d 110).  The release entered into by the parties was intended to resolve the instant controversy regarding the County's alleged actions in connection with the construction project.  The release precluded the third-party causes of action for common-law indemnification and contribution against the County.  Accordingly, the court properly granted the County's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WAN, LOVE and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.