New York State

North Riverside drainage dispute

A vacant-lot owner alleges that road drainage causes erosion at 0 North Riverside Avenue. Croton and NYSDOT dispute liability; the state also seeks payment for alleged guiderail damage. Evidence gathering continues.

Case: 57183/2025
Court: New York Supreme Court, Westchester County
Record checked: October 16, 2026

0 North Riverside LLC v. New York State Department of Transportation and Village of Croton on Hudson

The current position

Discovery continues

Active in the public electronic docket checked October 16, 2026. The Village’s request to end the claims against it was denied with permission to renew after discovery. A September order requires further NYSDOT questioning and sets a December status conference.

What we’re watching

Check for later orders before the November 20 NYSDOT questioning deadline and the December 8, 9:30 a.m. in-person status conference. Requests following the questioning are due within one week of the examination; their calendar deadline depends on when it occurs. A deadline is not proof that questioning has taken place.

Next newsroom review: November 19, 2026

What the owner says is happening

0 North Riverside LLC alleges that drainage collected along Route 9A and Village streets reaches its vacant lot through a culvert and causes erosion. Its filings also describe separate runoff from Route 9A. The connections and legal responsibility remain disputed.

Owner’s summons and verified complaint · Owner’s drainage observations · Signed decision denying Village motion

What the owner is asking for

Orders stopping the alleged discharges and compensation for lost property value. The complaint repeats a minimum $750,000 demand across its claims; these requests are not a combined award. Both defendants dispute liability.

Owner’s summons and verified complaint · Village answer, defenses and claims against NYSDOT · NYSDOT answer and guiderail counterclaim

Why Croton remains in the case

The Village says it did no drainage work affecting the property after the owner bought it, and argues that legal protections for governmental decisions apply. The judge found that this did not resolve whether Village drainage connects to the outlet and increases the flow. The ruling allows evidence gathering and a possible renewed motion; it does not decide liability.

Village arguments for summary judgment · Village manager’s affidavit · Signed decision denying Village motion

The state’s separate demand for money

NYSDOT alleges that the owner removed a state guiderail to reach an unpermitted entrance. It seeks $6,119.05 for repairs, a $1,346.19 collection fee and interest. The owner denies the removal and damages allegations. These are disputed demands, not a judgment.

NYSDOT answer and guiderail counterclaim · Owner’s reply to state counterclaim

The timeline

From the record

How we got here

November 21, 2023Official record
Company acquires the property
The filed title policy identifies 0 North Riverside LLC as acquiring the North Riverside Avenue parcel by a deed dated November 21, 2023. Its schedule describes the premises as unimproved.
Why this matters: Establishes when the company acquired the land. The Village later relies on the timing of the purchase in its defense.
- Filed title policy and property description · Doc. 20
January 8, 2024Official record
Village receives notice of claim
The Village’s stamped copy records receipt of the owner’s notice alleging unauthorized drainage and erosion. This is the receipt date shown on the original.
Why this matters: Gives the Village formal notice of the owner’s allegations before the Supreme Court lawsuit.
- Notice of claim received by Village · Doc. 16
October 14, 2024Official record
Owner questioned at municipal hearing
At a sworn municipal examination, Christopher O’Keefe describes the vacant lot, rainwater entering before purchase and the damage he attributes to drainage. He denies removing a guiderail.
Why this matters: Preserves the owner’s sworn account before the suit. His observations and explanations remain testimony, rather than court findings.
February 6, 2025Court filing
Owner files drainage lawsuit
The complaint names NYSDOT and the Village and brings trespass, private-nuisance and negligence claims. It requests injunctions and damages for diminished property value.
Why this matters: Starts this Supreme Court action seeking both changes to drainage and compensation.
- Owner’s summons and verified complaint · Doc. 1
March 3, 2025Court filing
Village denies liability and seeks recovery from the state
The Village answers, raises defenses and asks that NYSDOT bear all or part of any judgment against the Village according to responsibility.
Why this matters: Shows that the defendants also dispute who should bear any eventual cost. No such recovery is awarded by this pleading.
- Village answer, defenses and claims against NYSDOT · Doc. 4
March 14, 2025Court filing
State answers and brings guiderail counterclaim
NYSDOT denies the drainage claims, asserts a right based on longstanding use and other defenses, and requests money for alleged guiderail removal and repair.
Why this matters: Adds a separate claim against the owner; the state’s asserted drainage right remains a defense, not an established easement.
- NYSDOT answer and guiderail counterclaim · Doc. 5
April 3, 2025Court filing
Owner denies counterclaim allegations
The company’s reply denies the state’s guiderail-removal and damages allegations while acknowledging receipt of a notice claiming a debt.
Why this matters: Makes clear that the state’s repair demand is contested.
- Owner’s reply to state counterclaim · Doc. 9
May 2, 2025Court filing
Village seeks to end claims against it
The Village argues that it did not divert or increase water flow after the purchase and is protected by governmental immunity. The manager’s affidavit describes a records and staff search finding no relevant work since the purchase.
Why this matters: Asks the judge to rule without a trial on the submitted evidence.
- Village arguments for summary judgment · Doc. 13
- Village manager’s affidavit · Doc. 21
June 9, 2025Court filing
Owner submits drainage observations and area exhibits
The owner describes runoff entering drains on Prospect Place and Hillside Avenue, supplies a catch-basin photograph and county area map, and argues that more Village records are needed.
Why this matters: Identifies the suspected street-drainage connection. These exhibits do not by themselves prove the underground route.
June 20, 2025Court filing
Village contests the proposed connection
The Village replies that the owner has not supplied objective evidence linking the nearby catch basins to the water entering the lot and again requests dismissal of the claims against it.
Why this matters: States the Village’s response to the owner’s drainage theory before the ruling.
- Village’s reply in support of its motion · Doc. 32
September 30, 2025Court ruling
Judge denies Village motion; more evidence needed
Justice David J. Squirrell signs a decision finding that neither side has established whether Village drainage connects to the culvert. He denies the motion with leave to renew after discovery. The decision is filed October 21.
Why this matters: Keeps the Village in the case while evidence is gathered. It neither establishes liability nor awards damages.
- Signed decision denying Village motion · Doc. 35
July 30, 2026Court ruling
Court requests reasons for additional state questioning
A signed status order directs parties seeking further NYSDOT examinations to submit their reasons, with opposition due August 28, and sets a September 24 conference.
Why this matters: Creates the procedure for deciding whether more state witnesses should be questioned. Later orders govern the remaining schedule.
- July 30, 2026 status order · Doc. 55
August 6, 2026Court filing
Owner seeks more NYSDOT witnesses
The owner’s lawyer argues that the first state witness lacked information about drainage construction, maintenance and the response to the owner’s complaint.
Why this matters: Seeks witnesses who may know more about the drainage system. The letter is counsel’s account of testimony.
- Owner’s request for more NYSDOT witnesses · Doc. 56
August 7, 2026Court filing
Village also seeks more state testimony
The Village joins the request for NYSDOT construction and maintenance witnesses, citing its own defenses and claims against the state.
Why this matters: Shows an area where the owner and Village agree: both seek more state information about the drainage facilities.
- Village’s request for additional state testimony · Doc. 57
August 13, 2026Court ruling
Village questioning deadline extended
The judge signs a handwritten order extending the Village examination deadline to August 31. The order appears on the owner’s August 13 letter and is filed August 17.
Why this matters: Changes that historical deadline. It does not establish that the examination actually occurred on August 31.
- Signed extension of Village examination deadline · Doc. 59
August 28, 2026Court filing
State opposes additional construction witness
NYSDOT’s lawyer says the state is considering a maintenance witness but opposes additional construction testimony, asserting that its records show no construction since the original facilities were built.
Why this matters: Sets out the state’s response to the witness requests; the historical construction account is its position.
- NYSDOT response to witness requests · Doc. 60
September 24, 2026Court ruling
Court sets further NYSDOT questioning and December conference
Following the September 24 status conference, the signed order directs an examination of NYSDOT by November 20 and a December 8 conference. It is filed September 25.
Why this matters: Confirms that evidence gathering continues. No party may file another summary-judgment motion without the court’s prior permission.
- Latest reviewed signed status order · Doc. 61

Looking ahead

What’s scheduled next

These dates come from scheduling papers and may change. We add outcomes only after checking the record; a return date does not promise a decision that day.

November 20, 2026Future · scheduled
Deadline for NYSDOT examination
The latest reviewed order requires NYSDOT’s examination before trial by this date. Further document requests must be served within one week of the actual examination.
Why this matters: A deadline for obtaining testimony and follow-up evidence; it is not a trial or a finding of responsibility.
- Latest reviewed signed status order · Doc. 61
December 8, 2026Future · scheduled
In-person status conference scheduled
The latest reviewed order directs the parties to appear for an in-person status conference at 9:30 a.m.
Why this matters: The court can review progress and direct the next steps. No outcome has occurred merely because this date is scheduled.
- Latest reviewed signed status order · Doc. 61

Read the originals

Source documents

primary · Doc. 1Owner’s summons and verified complaint Cited pages: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
States the owner’s allegations and requested relief. Pages 13–14 contain the repeated damages demands.
primary · Doc. 4Village answer, defenses and claims against NYSDOT Cited pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
The Village denies liability and seeks allocation or reimbursement from its co-defendant if a judgment is entered against it.
primary · Doc. 5NYSDOT answer and guiderail counterclaim Cited pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Contains the state’s defenses and its disputed repair and collection-fee demands.
primary · Doc. 9Owner’s reply to state counterclaim Cited page: 1
Denies the alleged removal and damages; acknowledges receipt of the state’s debt notice.
primary · Doc. 13Village arguments for summary judgment Cited pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Explains the Village’s no-diversion and governmental-immunity arguments.
primary · Doc. 16Notice of claim received by Village Cited pages: 2, 3
The original bears a January 8, 2024 Village receipt stamp. Its allegations precede the later complaint.
primary · Doc. 17Municipal examination, first part Cited pages: 3, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 27, 28, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45
October 14, 2024 testimony. Includes the owner’s account of the purchase, prior water observations, site meeting and guiderail denial.
primary · Doc. 18Municipal examination, second part Cited pages: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 49
Continues the owner’s testimony about the survey, drainage route, right-of-way and rainwater. These are the witness’s accounts.
primary · Doc. 19Municipal examination, final part Cited pages: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25
Includes the owner’s explanations of harm and separate runoff, denial of guiderail removal, signed declaration and blank errata sheet.
primary · Doc. 20Filed title policy and property description Cited pages: 3, 4, 5
Identifies the company’s acquisition date and describes the unimproved premises and survey exceptions; it does not adjudicate the state’s claimed drainage right.
primary · Doc. 21Village manager’s affidavit Cited pages: 2, 3
Describes a records and staff search and states that the Village did no relevant drainage work after the purchase.
primary · Doc. 27Owner’s drainage observations Cited pages: 1, 2
Describes the owner’s observations on Prospect Place and Hillside Avenue. It does not establish an underground connection.
primary · Doc. 28Filed catch-basin photograph Cited page: 1
Photograph submitted with the owner’s opposition; no independent engineering conclusion is supplied.
primary · Doc. 29Filed county area and road map Cited page: 1
Shows Prospect and Hillside area context. The map’s selected-parcel heading is a neighboring address; it is not a drainage-network plan or a survey of the disputed lot.
primary · Doc. 30Owner’s opposition to Village motion Cited pages: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Explains why the owner disputes the Village’s arguments and seeks drainage records before a ruling.
primary · Doc. 32Village’s reply in support of its motion Cited pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Disputes the owner’s inference from nearby drains and maintains the Village’s legal defenses.
primary · Doc. 35Signed decision denying Village motion Cited pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Signed September 30, 2025; filed October 21. Allows a renewed motion after discovery and does not decide liability.
primary · Doc. 55July 30, 2026 status order Cited page: 1
Sets the process for requesting additional state witnesses; later orders update the remaining schedule.
primary · Doc. 56Owner’s request for more NYSDOT witnesses Cited pages: 1, 2
Counsel explains the requested testimony. This letter is not the underlying deposition transcript.
primary · Doc. 57Village’s request for additional state testimony Cited pages: 1, 2
The Village joins the request for construction and maintenance witnesses.
primary · Doc. 59Signed extension of Village examination deadline Cited page: 1
Signed August 13 and filed August 17, 2026. The handwritten ruling extends the Village examination deadline to August 31; it does not confirm completion.
primary · Doc. 60NYSDOT response to witness requests Cited page: 1
States the state’s position on proposed witnesses and historical construction; it is not a court finding.
primary · Doc. 61Latest reviewed signed status order Cited page: 1
Requires NYSDOT questioning by November 20, 2026 and sets a December 8, 9:30 a.m. in-person conference.
docketPublic NYSCEF docket and case details
Checked October 16, 2026. The full displayed electronic list has 61 entries and identifies the case as Active, assigned to Justice David J. Squirrell.

A complaint makes allegations. A proposed order asks for a ruling. A signed order records a court’s action.

Continuing coverage

Our reporting

This case file brings together the verified record. Further reporting will be linked here as it is published.

Discovery continues

What the owner says is happening

What the owner is asking for

Why Croton remains in the case

The state’s separate demand for money

The timeline

How we got here

Company acquires the property

Village receives notice of claim

Owner questioned at municipal hearing

Owner files drainage lawsuit

Village denies liability and seeks recovery from the state

State answers and brings guiderail counterclaim

Owner denies counterclaim allegations

Village seeks to end claims against it

Owner submits drainage observations and area exhibits

Village contests the proposed connection

Judge denies Village motion; more evidence needed

Court requests reasons for additional state questioning

Owner seeks more NYSDOT witnesses

Village also seeks more state testimony

Village questioning deadline extended

State opposes additional construction witness

Court sets further NYSDOT questioning and December conference

What’s scheduled next

Deadline for NYSDOT examination

In-person status conference scheduled