ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs' action, commenced in November 2000, was properly dismissed as time-barred (see CPLR 213; CPLR 203[f]; Dryden Hotel Assocs. v. Grimbilas, 226 A.D.2d 163). Any cause of action for an accounting of assets of an alleged partnership accrued in or before March 1994 when the plaintiffs were divested of any interest in the alleged partnership (see Partnership Law § 60; Dryden Hotel Assocs. v. Grimbilas, supra). The plaintiff Malaxa Acquisition Company commenced an action in 1997 relating to the same subject matter which was dismissed for failure to comply with a demand for a complaint. Accordingly, the action was commenced more than six years after the causes of action accrued and more than two years after the plaintiffs discovered any alleged fraud.
The plaintiffs' contention that the branch of the motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) was rendered academic by service of an amended complaint is without merit (see Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose, 251 A.D.2d 35, 38, revd on other grounds 91 N.Y.2d 30; Baker v. Reis, 223 A.D. 842; Matter of D'Addario v. McNab, 73 Misc.2d 59, 61). It has long been the rule in this Judicial Department that a motion to dismiss which is addressed to the merits may not be defeated by an amended pleading (see Baker v. Reis, supra; Matter of D'Addario v. McNab, supra). A motion to dismiss an action as time-barred is addressed to the merits (see Matter of Karmel v. Delfino, 293 A.D.2d 473).
SANTUCCI, J.P., O'BRIEN, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.