The son of a man who sold the famous Carlyle Hotel for $130 million is suing to unseal his late parents’ divorce file so he can unlock a larger share of his father’s $41 million fortune.
As a rule, divorce records are sealed for 100 years, but Ian Peck is seeking an exception to get a look at the 1976 case of Norman L. Peck versus Joan G. Peck.
Norman sold the Carlyle — which has welcomed every president since Harry Truman — in 2001.
He died in April at age 80. His first wife Joan is also dead.
Norman’s second wife Liliane, 77, gets a big slice of her late husband’s estate under his will.
His estate consists of a $29 million real estate company, $9 million in cash and securities, and a $3 million Upper East Side apartment, according to court papers.
The 2006 will divvies up Norman’s money and property into four trust funds that are to be paid out to Liliane, Ian and Liliane and Norman’s daughter Dominique Peck-Meyer. The amount of the payout to each family member is not detailed in court papers.
Liliane’s attorney, John Morken, declined to comment on the figures but said Norman “took care of all of his family.”
Norman also took care of the poor in his will leaving an unspecified amount to The New York Community Trust. During his life Norman served as the president of the Peter Jay Sharp Foundation doling out a record-breaking $20 million gift to the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 2004.
His son Ian says the divorce filings may reveal agreements that will give him a larger inheritance.
“The divorce proceeding records are relevant and necessary to show any agreements that decedent entered into with Joan related to Ian and how Ian should be treated in decedent’s estate plan,” the suit says.
He’s asking the court to make an exception to the 100-year rule so that he can scour the file’s documents, settlement agreements and any other paperwork.
“The court may issue an order permitting early access to matrimonial records where the records are significant and relevant to issues in a separate, unrelated litigation,” Peck’s suit says.
Peck and his lawyer did not return messages for comment.
Liliane’s attorney, John Morken, told The Post he doesn’t object to the request.
“I think he’s just trying to find out what he might be entitled to [and] we have no problem with that,” Morken said.
“We’re hoping that everybody plays nice in the sandbox and moves forward,” he said.
A spokesman for the state court system said, “Applications of this type are a matter of judicial discretion that are left up to the presiding judge on the case.”
A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 16.