The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has upheld a decision to revoke a power of attorney held by Michael Goldman and Tracie Goldman for S.N.C., an alleged incapacitated person. This ruling, made on October 15, 2026, affects the Goldmans and raises important questions about the responsibilities of agents under a power of attorney.
The case, officially titled Matter of S.N.C. (Index No. 816076/23 | Appeal No. 7243 | Case No. 2025-06431), centers on the actions of the Goldmans, who were accused of breaching their fiduciary duties to S.N.C. The court’s decision highlights the serious implications of mismanagement and potential exploitation of individuals deemed incapacitated.
S.N.C. was represented by the Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale, which filed the petition to revoke the power of attorney. The court found that the Goldmans had acted improperly by paying themselves from S.N.C.'s accounts without proper documentation and charging for services that were not legal in nature. This ruling is significant as it underscores the legal protections in place for individuals who may not be able to manage their affairs.
The dispute began when the Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale petitioned the court to revoke the power of attorney granted to the Goldmans. The court had to determine whether the Goldmans had indeed acted in accordance with their fiduciary responsibilities. The case reached the Appellate Division after Michael Goldman sought to vacate the earlier court order, arguing that the power of attorney should remain valid unless he or Tracie Goldman became incapacitated.
The Appellate Division, which included Justices Webber, Friedman, Kapnick, and Pitt-Burke, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. They found that the Supreme Court of Bronx County, led by Justice Laura G. Douglas, had exercised its discretion appropriately in revoking the power of attorney. The court stated, "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."
Additionally, the court rejected Goldman’s argument that the power of attorney remained effective despite the alleged incapacity of S.N.C. They noted that he did not provide any legal authority to support his claim, which contradicted the statutory language of Mental Hygiene Law § 81.29(d). The court emphasized that the Goldmans' actions were not only inappropriate but also detrimental to S.N.C.'s financial well-being.
The ruling also addressed Goldman's claims of misconduct by the petitioner, stating that he failed to provide evidence to support his allegations of fraud or misrepresentation. The court noted, "Goldman failed to demonstrate that the order should be vacated on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by petitioner." This statement reinforces the importance of evidence in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving fiduciary responsibilities.
This decision has significant implications for individuals acting under a power of attorney. It serves as a reminder that agents must adhere to strict standards of conduct and that courts take breaches of fiduciary duty seriously. The ruling also emphasizes the protections available for those who may be vulnerable due to incapacity, ensuring that their interests are safeguarded.
Moving forward, this ruling may influence how power of attorney agreements are drafted and enforced. It highlights the need for transparency and accountability among agents, particularly in financial matters. Individuals considering appointing someone as their agent should be aware of the responsibilities that come with such authority and the potential consequences of failing to uphold those duties.
As for the Goldmans, it remains to be seen whether they will seek further legal recourse. The court's decision is final unless they choose to appeal to a higher court. Currently, there are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling. However, the case could serve as a precedent for future disputes involving powers of attorney and fiduciary duties.