On its face a very straightforward if odd case.  Plaintiff serves a summons with notice and then fails to file a complaint when a demand is made. The case is dismissed.  But, a quick look at WebCivilSupreme indicates that plaintiff has sued many a law firm, including Steven Louros, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein along with a number of real estate brokerages.

“In this claim sounding in legal malpractice, defendant Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP moves, pursuant to CPLR 3012(b), to dismiss the action due to plaintiffs failure to serve a complaint. Defendant also moves, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(5), to dismiss based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. On January 26, 2015, plaintiffs Robert Malta, GMO 444 LLC, .and GMO Realty LLC commenced the captioned action against defendant Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, a law firm, by filing a summons with notice. Exs. A, D. The summons with notice alleged that plaintiffs sought $10 million due to defendant’s legal malpractice. Ex. A. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that they had hired defendant to provide tax advice “regarding their purchase of a minority ownership interest in corporations holding shares in a commercial cooperative at 121 Varick Street, New York, New York in ·January 2012.” Id. The summons with notice, which was verified by Malta on behalf of all three plaintiffs, was served on defendant via the Secretary of State on May 14, 2015 and was filed with the court the following day. Exs. A, B, C. On June 11, 2015, defendant filed a notice of appearance and a demand for a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012(b). Ex. C. However, plaintiff has not served a complaint. ”

“Pursuant to CPLR 3012(b ), a plaintiff who commences an action by service of a summons with notice and who has been served with a demand for the service of a complaint has 20 days in which to comply with that demand. See Wess v Olympia and New York Realty Corp., 201 AD2d 365 (1st Dept 1994 ). A plaintiff seeking to serve a complaint after the expiration of the 20-day period must demonstrate the merits of the cause of action and a reasonable excuse for the delay. See Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594, 599 (1980). Here, defendant’s notice of appearance and demand for a complaint was filed on June 11, 2015. Ex. C. However, nearly one year later, plaintiff has neither served a complaint nor even ‘ opposed this motion with any proffered reason why no complaint was served. Thus, the action is dismissed in the discretion of this Court pursuant to CPLR 30 l 2(b ). See Alvarado v New Y0rk City Hous. Auth., 192 AD2d 461 (1st Dept 1993). “