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.”

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Andrew Lavoott Bluestone

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone has been an attorney for 40 years, with a career that spans criminal prosecution, civil litigation and appellate litigation. Mr. Bluestone became an Assistant District Attorney in Kings County in 1978, entered private practice in 1984 and in 1989 opened…

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone has been an attorney for 40 years, with a career that spans criminal prosecution, civil litigation and appellate litigation. Mr. Bluestone became an Assistant District Attorney in Kings County in 1978, entered private practice in 1984 and in 1989 opened his private law office and took his first legal malpractice case.

Since 1989, Bluestone has become a leader in the New York Plaintiff’s Legal Malpractice bar, handling a wide array of plaintiff’s legal malpractice cases arising from catastrophic personal injury, contracts, patents, commercial litigation, securities, matrimonial and custody issues, medical malpractice, insurance, product liability, real estate, landlord-tenant, foreclosures and has defended attorneys in a limited number of legal malpractice cases.

Bluestone also took an academic role in field, publishing the New York Attorney Malpractice Report from 2002-2004.  He started the “New York Attorney Malpractice Blog” in 2004, where he has published more than 4500 entries.

Mr. Bluestone has written 38 scholarly peer-reviewed articles concerning legal malpractice, many in the Outside Counsel column of the New York Law Journal. He has appeared as an Expert witness in multiple legal malpractice litigations.

Mr. Bluestone is an adjunct professor of law at St. John’s University College of Law, teaching Legal Malpractice.  Mr. Bluestone has argued legal malpractice cases in the Second Circuit, in the New York State Court of Appeals, each of the four New York Appellate Divisions, in all four of  the U.S. District Courts of New York and in Supreme Courts all over the state.  He has also been admitted pro haec vice in the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and Florida and was formally admitted to the US District Court of Connecticut and to its Bankruptcy Court all for legal malpractice matters. He has been retained by U.S. Trustees in legal malpractice cases from Bankruptcy Courts, and has represented municipalities, insurance companies, hedge funds, communications companies and international manufacturing firms. Mr. Bluestone regularly lectures in CLEs on legal malpractice.

Based upon his professional experience Bluestone was named a Diplomate and was Board Certified by the American Board of Professional Liability Attorneys in 2008 in Legal Malpractice. He remains Board Certified.  He was admitted to The Best Lawyers in America from 2012-2019.  He has been featured in Who’s Who in Law since 1993.

In the last years, Mr. Bluestone has been featured for two particularly noteworthy legal malpractice cases.  The first was a settlement of an $11.9 million dollar default legal malpractice case of Yeo v. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman which was reported in the NYLJ on August 15, 2016. Most recently, Mr. Bluestone obtained a rare plaintiff’s verdict in a legal malpractice case on behalf of the City of White Plains v. Joseph Maria, reported in the NYLJ on February 14, 2017. It was the sole legal malpractice jury verdict in the State of New York for 2017.

Bluestone has been at the forefront of the development of legal malpractice principles and has contributed case law decisions, writing and lecturing which have been recognized by his peers.  He is regularly mentioned in academic writing, and his past cases are often cited in current legal malpractice decisions. He is recognized for his ample writings on Judiciary Law § 487, a 850 year old statute deriving from England which relates to attorney deceit.