In Barbarito v. Zahavi, 107 A.D.3d 416 [1st Dept 2013] the First Department held that: "The 'single motion rule' . . . does not bar [defendants] Seelig and MSF from moving to dismiss the amended complaint, as the fraud cause of action in the amended complaint is not the same as the corresponding cause of action in the original complaint. Indeed, plaintiffs did not assert the fraud claim against MSF in the original complaint, so MSF could not have moved to dismiss that claim. . . . Therefore, because Seelig and MSF did not have the opportunity to address the merits of the original cause of action, the single motion rule does not apply." (107 A.D.3d at 420).