contend that the continuing affects of earlier unlawful conduct does apply to those types of people but in a fraud case that we have in this case i contend that that phrase is more problematic to apply in  typically in a broad camps you might have a payment based on a mr presentation and then later there might be a subsequent meeting and there's or missions in that meeting and and the original payment that you made you maintain your investment in that fraud in that fraud and that's what occurred in that case so content fraud cases are a different animal than all the contract cases cited by the low court and also by those in counsel in as much as  his investments that were made more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint are barred by the statute of limitations and to briefly walk through the analysis of the place always start with a sta limitations claim is on the a cruel and there's no question that it brought claims based on an investment or purchase a cruise when the oh my lord i'm sorry i thought i got cut off judge i might by total collapse twice and i course the st time this st case involving multiple investments over a period of time nor will be the last and there is a fair body of law showing how the court apply the statute of limitations and new york with respect to multiple investments or purposes over time and what the court does is it looks at the investments of purchases and says that for those that were six years prior to the filing of the complaint the buck that's what the court did in pipes which is a fraud claim relating to nearly a dozen insurance policies purchased over several years likewise that the court did that barred just like the court held and then we the only way to sort of say this is for the the court or for the at talent to attempt to rely upon the i think as the as most frequently call back and forth between those descriptions and the but either way the doctors are saying and the for the continuing violation doctrine to apply you do need an un lawful act period and that doesn't exist here the court recognized that there is no on lawful after the district court judge paris recognized that there is no unlawful act in the statutory period that would potentially give rise to the application of the continuing violation doctrine and as this court and judge lloyd in your opinion just recognize just this past thursday and miller being metropolitan it applied this well established doctrine and appl correctly and recognizing that there was no recognizing that it only applies where there is an actual continuing unlawful act within the statutory period the there's another question as to whether that continuing violation doctrine can actually apply in cases where there's discrete acts this is not a case where there is a continuous trespass where you see the adoption applied or  where a building owner fails to repair or a continued failure of a coke owner of a building for instance to account for proceeds where there are there in those cases there is continuous on law inside in our brief but inside in a number of cases which is the town of oyster baby lisa enterprises where there the court rejected the application of the continuing wrong doctrine or getting violation doctrine by noting that the torch of conduct consisted of discrete acts and noting that the cruel does not change as a result of continuing consequential damages and the vital point i would like to make on the continuing violation during the applicable statute of limitations period immediately preceding the commencement of this action and judge and it's the nd circuit opinion just last week and miller the metropolitan life  footnote two it cites a few cases mentioning that the continuing wrong doctrine is sometimes used by new york courts but one of those cases is the carry st trustees of columbia university in the city of new york case  there recognize that the recovery is limited to damages incurred within the statutory period you don't get to go back you know get to go back beyond the six year step straight period the court you know get their sense judge and the complaint was june two thousand and eleven relating to representations with respect to the rd project walk in your garden and as judge karen correctly recognize acting a statute of limitations and then just briefly on the certification issue that that motion was filed after the priest were filed we appreciate that that issue would be consolidated with arguments on on the merits and of precedent addressing this continuing violation doctrine that wishing that clear principle that it only applies where there is a continuing unlawful act within the statute limitations and that doesn't exist here we would different than the breach of contract claims where you can be cited insurance premium insurance contract and every year you're paying the wrong premium and those are recurring damages which this this  covered because those are continuing the facts of the unlawful conduct so we have to act applying the contract cases to this fraud situation we have here i don't think is proper and this is more now we get to the e