The trial court properly concluded that no cause of action for negligence was commenced. When a summons is served without a complaint pursuant to CPLR 305 (b), it is imperative that "`"at least basic information concerning the nature of plaintiff's claim and the relief sought"'" be provided (Matter of Hart Is. Comm. v. Koch, 150 A.D.2d 269, 271, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 705). Here, defendants could not reasonably have been expected to ascertain the nature of the action from plaintiff's mere description of same as "Premises". That term does not denote a recognizable cause of action (cf., Rowell v. Gould, Inc., 124 A.D.2d 995, 996), and could well encompass any number of potential causes of action. Since the action was terminated for failure to obtain personal jurisdiction, plaintiff may not obtain a six-month extension of time for re-commencing the action (Parker v. Mack, 61 N.Y.2d 114). Finally, since it is not disputed that the same deficient summons with notice was served on the non-answering defendant Elizabeth Broome Realty Corp., the trial court properly dismissed the action, sua sponte, as to that defendant.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.