MOLLY HAMRICK plf-ap, v. SCHAIN LEIFER GURALNICK, def, MATTHEW BARNES def-res

2795. MOLLY HAMRICK plf-ap, v. SCHAIN LEIFER GURALNICK, def, MATTHEW BARNES def-res — Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP, Dallas, TX (Anthony L. Vitullo of the bar of the State of Texas, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for ap — Law Offices of Robert L. Plotz, New York (Robert L. Plotz of counsel), for res — —Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered on or about September 3, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants Matthew Barnes and Montcalm Co., LLC’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty claims are time-barred. These claims accrued upon plaintiffs’ making their investments (Prichard v 164 Ludlow Corp., 49 AD3d 408 [1st Dept 2008]). Plaintiffs were placed on inquiry notice of the alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty when they received the private placement memorandum, which expressly contradicted defendants’ alleged oral representations that the investments’ tax strategy was tested and valid, when they saw — immediately — that they were not receiving the promised returns, and when they learned that the tax strategy was ultimately repudiated by the IRS (see Gutkin v Siegal, 85 AD3d 687 [1st Dept 2011]). Since plaintiffs commenced this action more than six years after the date of their investments and more than two years after they had constructive knowledge of the alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, these claims are time-barred (CPLR 213[8]).