2026 NY Slip Op 06004
October 15, 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.
In the Matter of S.N.C. also known as S.N.G. An Alleged Incapacitated Person In the Matter of Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale Petitioner-Respondent,
v
Michael Goldman, Respondent-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: October 15, 2026
Index No. 816076/23|Appeal No. 7243|Case No. 2025-06431|
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, Kapnick, Pitt-Burke, JJ.
Michael L. Goldman, East Rockaway, for appellant.
Cona Elder Law PLLC, Melville (Diana DiLeonardo of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered July 21, 2025, which denied the motion of Michael Goldman, Esq., to vacate a portion of an order, same court and Justice, dated October 11, 2024, revoking the power of attorney executed by S.N.C., the alleged incapacitated person (AIP), naming Michael Goldman and Tracie Goldman as her agents, unanimously affirmed.
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in revoking the power of attorney that the AIP provided to Michael Goldman and Tracie Goldman. The record supports the court's finding that the Goldmans breached their fiduciary duties to the AIP by paying themselves out of her accounts based only on her alleged verbal authorization and without providing invoices, charging her for legal services when they provided only personal services such as visits, and mismanaging her accounts.
We reject Michael Goldman's assertion that the power of attorney, which the AIP executed at a time when the she was competent, remains in effect unless he or Tracie Goldman become incapacitated. He cites no legal authority for this position, and it conflicts with the express statutory language of Mental Hygiene Law § 81.29(d) (cf. Matter of Goldfein v Kohler, 221 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2023]).
Further, Michael Goldman failed to demonstrate that the order should be vacated on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by petitioner (CPLR 5015[a][3]) or on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction (CPLR 5015[a][4]). Goldman failed to offer any evidence to support his claims of misconduct by petitioner, and failed to provide any basis to challenge the court's jurisdiction.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: October 15, 2026