New York State
Van Cortlandt Manor contract dispute
River Rock and its owner seek $2,705,170 over the earlier entrance-restoration contract. The Village and Historic Hudson Valley allege contractor failures and seek unquantified damages. Responsibility remains unresolved.
- Case
- 59183/2026
- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Westchester County
- Record checked
Karl Dibble and River Rock Supply Corp., Inc. v. Village of Croton on Hudson, Historic Hudson Valley, LLC, Dillon and Semenovich, Inc. and Colliers Engineering
The current position
Contract dispute and counterclaim continue
The public docket checked October 16, 2026 displays an active case and 25 entries. Two overlapping payment claims were dismissed September 3; contract claims and a counterclaim continue under an October 1 discovery order.
Follow document production, the January 7, 2027 virtual conference, later schedule changes and any ruling or settlement on responsibility and damages. A scheduled deadline does not show that the required step occurred.
What the contractor wants
River Rock and Karl Dibble ask for $2,705,170, the amount of the earlier contract including alternatives, and allege unpaid costs and a tied-up bond deposit. The court has not accepted that valuation or awarded payment.
Summons and complaint · Earlier River Rock construction contract · Signed September 3 decision and order
What the Village and nonprofit say
They say River Rock did not satisfy project requirements and caused delay and added costs. Their counterclaim seeks an amount to be proved at trial. River Rock maintains it was ready to begin.
Summons and complaint · Village and Historic Hudson Valley answer and counterclaim
What the judge decided
Two alternative payment claims were dismissed because the written contract governs the dispute. The judge did not decide who breached the agreement or end the lawsuit.
Why construction can continue
Trustees approved a later award to Remus Industries, and the Village reports a February 2026 notice to proceed. That public project record is separate from the unresolved demand over River Rock’s earlier agreement.
The timeline
From the recordHow we got here
- Local background
Six restoration bids received
The later minutes identify this as the bid receipt date, following a March 7 advertisement.
Why this matters: Separates bidding from the November date on the signed construction agreement.
- Village authorization
Trustees approve conditional River Rock award
Resolution 130-2024 passes 4–0, approving River Rock’s $2,705,170 total including alternatives, subject to state transportation concurrence.
Why this matters: The Village approves the contractor selection; the resolution still requires state concurrence before contract execution.
- Local background
River Rock contract signed
The filed agreement bears the Village manager’s November 19 approval, River Rock’s signature and Historic Hudson Valley’s written consent.
Why this matters: Establishes the written agreement whose start, payment and cancellation terms are disputed.
- Party’s account
Preconstruction meeting
The complaint says a meeting occurred after River Rock met the requirements, but no notice to proceed followed. The Village and Historic Hudson Valley admit the meeting and dispute that the contractor fulfilled its obligations.
Why this matters: Marks the disputed point at which River Rock says it should have been allowed to begin; the parties disagree about readiness.
- Party’s account
Contract cancellation alleged
The complaint says the defendants attempted to cancel on this date without following the contract. The defendants dispute the plaintiffs’ account and allege contractor noncompliance.
Why this matters: This is the breakdown for which the parties seek compensation. No ruling has decided who breached.
- Village authorization
Trustees approve later Remus award
Resolution 300-2025 approves a $2,666,671.40 bid including alternatives, subject to state transportation concurrence.
Why this matters: The restoration has a later contractor award while the earlier River Rock dispute remains unresolved.
- Local background
Village reports notice to proceed for Remus
The Village project page identifies this as the start authorization date for the later contractor.
Why this matters: Separates the current project’s start authorization from River Rock’s claim that it never received one.
- Court filing
Dibble and River Rock file lawsuit
The complaint seeks $2,705,170 under several alternative claims and names the Village, Historic Hudson Valley, Dillon and Semenovich, and Colliers Engineering.
Why this matters: Begins this case seeking compensation; the demands are not awards and should not be added together.
- Court filing
Village and nonprofit request partial dismissal
They ask to dismiss unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims because the written contract governs the dispute.
Why this matters: The motion targets two alternative payment claims, rather than the entire lawsuit.
- Court filing
Plaintiffs oppose partial dismissal
They argue that alternative payment claims should remain because the contract’s scope is unresolved and they were not allowed to perform.
Why this matters: Shows the contractor’s reason for asking to retain these theories of recovery.
- Court filing
Colliers files answer
Colliers denies the consulting and interference claims, disputes a contractual relationship and asks for dismissal.
Why this matters: Records the engineering defendant’s position; these defenses are not court findings.
- Court ruling
Judge dismisses two overlapping claims
Justice Koba dismisses unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims against the Village and Historic Hudson Valley because the contract governs; the complaint continues.
Why this matters: Narrows the available payment theories without deciding fault or awarding damages.
- Court filing
Village and nonprofit file counterclaim
They allege unmet requirements, delay and additional costs, and request damages to be established at trial.
Why this matters: Both sides now ask the court to order compensation; no amount has been proved or awarded.
- Court ruling
Court sets evidence schedule
The signed preliminary conference order sets document, deposition and disclosure deadlines. A separate notice cancels the October 1 conference because the order has been uploaded.
Why this matters: Moves the dispute into evidence gathering. Cancellation of that conference did not end the case.
- Newsroom check
Public docket checked
The state electronic file displays 25 entries and active status. Its latest entries are the October 1 order and notice.
Why this matters: States the date of this account so readers can distinguish the current record from later developments.