Rozof v. D. Karnofsky, Inc.
This text of Rozof v. D. Karnofsky, Inc. (Rozof v. D. Karnofsky, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Rozof v D. Karnofsky, Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 04158
June 30, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Arthur Rozof, Appellant,
v
D. Karnofsky, Inc., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Decided and Entered: June 30, 2026
Index No. 657124/17|Appeal No. 6978|Case No. 2025-02926|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, O'neill Levy, JJ.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York (Zaid Shukri of counsel), for appellant.
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Garden City (John P. McEntee of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered April 9, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendant D. Karnofsky, Inc. (DKI) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.
The transaction at issue was entered into directly between plaintiff and DKI, and the other shareholders had no right to alter or object or agree to the transaction. Accordingly, plaintiff's duty of candor was discharged by making full disclosure only to the corporation, which he did by transacting directly with his mother, who signed the notes in question in her capacity as DKI's vice president, and who was not herself self-interested (see Blue Chip Emerald v Allied Partners, 299 AD2d 278, 279 [1st Dept 2002], abrogated on other grounds by Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v AmÉrica MÓvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 NY3d 269, 278 [2011]).
To the extent DKI argues that plaintiff was required to disclose that the recovery on the notes was time-barred, there is an issue of fact as to whether that was the case, making summary judgment in DKI's favor inappropriate. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 30, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rozof v. D. Karnofsky, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rozof-v-d-karnofsky-inc-nyappdiv-2026.