In Alpert v. Shea Gould Climenko & Casey, 160 A.D.2d 67 (1st Dept. 1990), plaintiff asserted claims of fraudulent misrepresentation against two law firms arising out of erroneous tax advice, resulting in the disallowance, by the Internal Revenue Service, of deductions claimed by plaintiffs on the basis of their investment in a tax shelter. The appellate court upheld a denial of leave to amend the complaint to assert a second cause of action in fraud because the original complaint alleged facts different from those alleged in the amended complaint. The original fraud complaint alleged that the tax opinion letter was false, while the amended fraud claim alleged that the memorandum offering the tax shelter was itself replete with falsehoods of which the defendants were aware. The relation back doctrine did not apply because the original complaint did not involve the same factual scenario and circumstances surrounding the amended claim such as to give notice enabling defendant to prepare a defense. The Court concluded that the original complaint did not sufficiently give notice of the facts regarding the amendment and cause of action. As such, the Court concluded that, the absence of notice did not enable the defendant to prepare a defense. Id. The Court deemed that plaintiff's three year delay in seeking to amend its pleadings was inexcusable. Id.