The following papers numbered EF 1-19 read on this Order to Show Cause by the petitioner to vacate a Power-of-Attorney and Health Care Proxy given to respondent Demetria Koutrakos and permitting Christalla Koutrakos to return to her home, located at 30-90 36th Street, Astoria, Queens County, where she can reside with her adult son, the petitioner, and his wife.

Upon the foregoing papers and the record made at a virtual hearing on November 17, 2025, it is ordered that this Order to Show Cause by the petitioner to vacate a Power-of-Attorney and Health Care Proxy given to respondent Demetria Koutrakos and permitting Christalla Koutrakos to return to her home, located at 30-90 36th Street, Astoria, Queens County, is decided as follows:

Petitioner Gregory Koutrakos is the son of Christalla Koutrakos ("Christalla"), an 85 year-old woman, who is currently a patient at the New York Center for Rehabilitation and [*2]Nursing. Respondent Demetria Koutrakos is the petitioner's sister and the daughter of Christalla. Respondent serves as the Health Care Agent and Attorney-in-Fact for her mother under a Health Care Proxy and Power of Attorney, both of which were executed on August 2, 2021. Petitioner now seeks to vacate the Power of Attorney and Health Care Proxy and further seeks to permit his mother to return to the home, located at 30-90 36th Street in Astoria, Queens County, where he resides with his wife. The home is owned by Christalla, who lived there for many years before moving in with the respondent in an apartment in Elmhurst, Queens, approximately five years ago.

Petitioner contends that the respondent wishes to have her mother remain in a facility or nursing home against her wishes. Petitioner asserts that he and his wife can provide round-the clock care for his mother if she is permitted to move back into the Astoria home. He claims that the Power of Attorney and Health Care Proxy are at odds with his mother's current wishes as she wants to return to her home in Astoria and does not want to reside in a nursing home.

In opposition, respondent asserts that there is no basis to vacate the Power of Attorney or Health Care Proxy. Respondent states that her mother suffers from a host of medical conditions and requires extensive medically trained staff to care for her. Respondent also states that her mother is in no position to make medical decisions for herself. Respondent further asserts that her mother is fearful of the petitioner, who, she claims, has a bad temper and has been domineering towards their mother.

General Obligations Law 5-1511 provides for the termination or revocation of a Power of Attorney under various circumstances, including where a court order revokes the power of attorney as provided in section 5-1510. (General Obligations Law § 5-1511 [1][h].) Section 5-1510(f) permits a special proceeding to remove an agent upon the grounds that the agent has violated, or is unfit, unable, or unwilling to perform, the fiduciary duties under the power of attorney.

Further, Public Health Law § 2992 authorizes a special proceeding to have a health care agent removed on the grounds that the agent "(a) is not reasonably available, willing and competent to fulfill his or her obligations under this article; (b) is acting in bad faith..."

In the case at bar, the petitioner has not established the right to revoke the Power of Attorney or the Health Care Proxy given to the respondent. At the virtual hearing, the parties' mother, Christalla, appeared, and the court questioned her as to various issues. Christalla knew the names of her children, but she was unable to respond clearly to many of the questions posed by the court. She could not respond to questions regarding her personal care, and did not remember signing any documents regarding her medical care. Throughout the hearing, Christalla was often holding her head and appeared confused. She gave no indication as to where she wanted to live nor did she give any indication that she wishes to revoke her current Power of Attorney or Health Care Proxy. In addition, although the petitioner avers in his affidavit that he and his wife are prepared to provide round-the-clock care for his mother, he does not offer any [*3]specific details as to how he would provide such care, which is clearly necessary for his mother.

The court further notes that the petitioner's reliance on Matter of Vicki M.A. (Lynda P.-Lisa P.) (218 AD3d 769 [2d Dept 2023]) is misplaced. The court in Matter of Vicki revoked the designation of an agent as health care proxy because the record showed that there had been a breach of fiduciary duty by the agent, and the agent was not acting in the best interests of the principal. In the instant case, however, there is no evidence that the respondent has breached her fiduciary duty as her mother's agent nor is she acting against her mother's best interests. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the respondent is deeply concerned for her mother's well-being and wants to ensure that her mother is able to receive all the medical care she requires and is not endangered in any manner.

Accordingly, this Order to Show Cause by the petitioner is denied in its entirety.