Peck v Milbank LLP 2025 NY Slip Op 30180(U) January 17, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 152290/2022 Judge: Andrew Borrok is a claim involving breach of fiduciary duty and violation of Judiciary Law 487. Several issues were recently decided.
“Upon the foregoing documents and for the reasons set forth below, Ian Peck and Stubbs Holdings, LLC (collectively, Ian Peck)’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (the SAC; NYSCEF Doc. No. 123) is DENIED.
Reference is made to a prior Decision and Order of this Court, dated July 29, 2024 (the Prior Decision; NYSCEF Doc. No. 107). The facts of this case are set forth in the Prior Decision, and familiarity is presumed. Pursuant to the Prior Decision, the Court granted Milbank LLP, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & Mccloy, LLP (collectively, Milbank)’s and Georgiana Slade’s motion to dismiss (Mtn. Seq. No. 002) as to Ian Peck’s claims sounding in fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and denied dismissal as to the claim sounding in violation of Judiciary Law § 487.
The Court held that Ian Peck failed to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty because “the FAC does not adequately identify statements or omissions to the Trustee when a duty was owed” (id. at 9). Significantly, the Court dismissed the fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims without prejudice because Liliane Peck (the Trustee) had not yet been deposed, and the deposition might have potentially formed the basis for the claims (id.).”
“Ian Peck argues, in sum and substance, that Ms. Slade is liable for breach of fiduciary duty as a fiduciary to Ian Peck’s fiduciary, the Trustee, because Ms. Slade’s failed to disclose an alleged conflicts of interest based on certain investments that her father had with Norman Peck when the Trustee made certain decisions and received certain advice. But, the Trustee knew of Ms. Slade’s father’s investments and considered them de minimus and immaterial and testified in sum and substance that Ms. Slade did not influence her allocation decisions.”
“However, these new allegations do not allege an act or omission that is separate and apart from the statements and omissions to the tribunal that underpin the Judiciary Law claim. As such, these proposed amendments would not remedy the deficiencies in the first amended complaint as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim.”