Here is the tension:  in order to toll the statute of limitations one must commence an action.  Sometimes there is not enough time to prepare a competent complaint and file it,.  The solution is a summons with notice.  The notice requirement is what separates a good summons (which may lead to a default judgment) from a bad one.  What is enough "notice"?

Smith v Subbaiah  2013 NY Slip Op 31657(U)  July 18, 2013  Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: 805332/2012  Judge: Martin Shulman  discusses this issue.

"Defendants argue the summons with notice is jurisdictionally defective because it lacks any supporting facts, such as the date and type of treatment plaintiff received, thus giving no indication of plaintiff’s allegations plaintiff against them. Defendant Subbaiah further alleges that he has treated at least two (2) patients having the common name of Carol Smith and, due to that fact, plaintiffs failure to include more detailed allegations in the summons with notice was particularly insufficient to place him on notice of plaintiffs claims."

"CPLR 305 (b) provides in relevant part:
Summons and notice. If the complaint is not served with the summons,
the summons shall contain or have attached thereto a notice stating the
nature of the action and the relief sought …

The absence of such notice or a defective or inadequate description of the nature of the action which fails to apprise the defendant of the essence of the claim is fatal because it fails to confer jurisdiction over the defendant and must be treated as a nullity. Scaringi v Broome Realty Corp., 154 Misc2d 786, 789,586 NYS2d 472 (Sup Ct, NYCounty 1991), affd 191 AD2d 223 (1 sl Dept 1993). 

Defendants’ motions are denied. "The purpose of the CPLR 305 (b) notice is to provide the defendant with ‘at least basic information concerning the nature of [the] plaintiffs claim and the relief sought”’. Bullis v American Motors Corp., 175 AD2d 535, 536 (3d Dept 1991), citing Parker v Mack, 61 NY2d 114, 117 (1984). "A liberal construction of the statutory requirement of the contents of the notice accompanying a summons served without a complaint is consistent with the general policy of the CPLR". Id. A plaintiff is not required to specifically state her theory of recovery since "absolute precision is not necessary". Id. Here, although plaintiffs characterization of her claim is broad and she offers no specific factual details, this court cannot say that her summons with notice is inadequate at this stage of the litigation. Medical malpractice is the essence of plaintiffs claim and a recognizable cause of action. Scaringi, 191 AD2d at 223. As the lower court noted in Scaringi (154 Misc2d at 789), broadly descriptive words such as "automobile negligence", "negligence", "libel" and "legal services" have been held sufficient to describe an action’s nature. Indeed, in Pilla v La Flor De Mayo Express, Inc., 191 AD2d 224,224 (1 st Dept 1993), the First Department held that CPLR 305 (b)’s requirements were met by the mere statement "personal injury" (compare Roth v State Univ. of New York, 61 AD3d 476 [1 st Dept], Iv den 13 NY3d 711 [2009] [no compliance with CPLR 305 (b) where summons described the action’s nature a’s "violations of federal, New York State, and New York City human rights laws, including but not limited to" various named statutes, since numerous potential causes of action could be brought under such statutes])."
2