Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(power of attorney revoked for the Goldmans)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of S.N.C.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 15, 2026
Docket
Index No. 816076/23|Appeal No. 7243|Case No. 2025-06431|
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 06004
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 16, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court: denied the motion to vacate the order revoking the power of attorney.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (power of attorney revoked for the Goldmans)

TL;DR

  1. 1S.N.C. gave power of attorney to Michael Goldman and Tracie Goldman. The court denied Goldman’s request to restore the power after finding misuse of funds. The ruling was supported by evidence of breach of fiduciary duty.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Was the revocation of the power of attorney justified?

    Holding · Yes, the court found strong evidence of mismanagement and breach of duty.

  2. 2

    Did Goldman provide sufficient grounds to vacate the order?

    Holding · No, he failed to show fraud or jurisdictional issues.

Why it matters

This affects the management of the assets of those deemed incapacitated, ensuring they are protected from mismanagement.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Court revokes power of attorney for alleged incapacitated person. Should it stay revoked?

  1. 1An alleged incapacitated person named S.N.C. had given her power of attorney to Michael Goldman and Tracie Goldman.
  2. 2Concerns arose when they paid themselves from her accounts without invoices and charged her for non-legal services.
  3. 3Michael Goldman argues the power of attorney should remain effective, but the court questions their actions and duties.

Should the court keep Michael Goldman's power of attorney revoked?

Vote to earn 10 Verdict Points

Opinion of the court
Matter of S.N.C. 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. [*1] 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
View on CourtListener