We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff's filing of a summons that did not comply with the notice requirements of CPLR 305 (b) was jurisdictionally defective and consequently failed to toll the Statute of Limitations pursuant to CPLR 203 (b) (5) (Kaplan v Manoli, 100 A.D.2d 928, affd 64 N.Y.2d 849; Frerk v Mercy Hosp., 99 A.D.2d 504, affd 63 N.Y.2d 635).
The IAS Court also properly denied plaintiff permission to amend the summons in order to set forth the nature of the action. A jurisdictionally void summons cannot be amended to breathe life into a dead claim (see, Tamburo v P C Food Mkts., 36 A.D.2d 1017), since to do so would be to prejudice "a substantial right of a party against whom the summons issued" (CPLR 305 [c]).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.