You have to get to the 6th paragraph from the bottom before the real conflict is revealed.

"[the homeowners] do fault their real-estate agent and [the seller], who signed a purchase-and-sale agreement, a copy of which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal, stating that [the seller] did not know of any future public use of the land."

Should be pretty cut-and-dry, especially given the seller's statements earlier in the article.

"Louis Gallo, who sold the Hendels the vacant, 0.64-acre parcel of land for $165,000 in December 2023, said there is no way the couple didn’t know the bridge relocation was a possibility. 'They’ve been talking about this bridge for 40 years, at least,' said Louis, who lives across the street in a house that will also be taken by eminent domain."

So, Gallo's claiming everyone knew the bridge was coming. The buyers have a signed document stating that Gallo didn't know that. Gallo's claiming he never signed such a document.

They'll get something from the state for the house, and probably either a settlement or damages from Gallo, assuming the document isn't an elaborate hoax.