In Gutkin v. Siegal, 85 A.D.3d 687 (1st Dep't 2011) the court held that the "plaintiff had constructive knowledge of the alleged fraud . . . when he recognized that his investment returns were significantly less than expected. At that point, a reasonable investor who had lost millions of dollars would have investigated further, rather than accept the cursory explanation plaintiff allegedly received." Id. The Court held: "The test as to when fraud should with reasonable diligence have been discovered is an objective one. Where the circumstances are such as to suggest to a person of ordinary intelligence the probability that he has been defrauded, a duty of inquiry arises, and if he omits that inquiry when it would have developed the truth, and shuts his eyes to the facts which call for investigation, knowledge of the fraud will be imputed to him." (Id. at 688.)