In Weiner v. MKVII-Westchester, LLC, et al, 292 A.D.2d 597, an action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant sought the cancellation of a Notice of Pendency filed on August 31, 2000. The Trial Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, and cancelled the Notice of Pendency, finding that the August 31, 2000 Notice of Pendency was the second Notice of Pendency which the plaintiffs had filed. A prior Notice of Pendency had been filed on June 14, 2000. The defendants had successfully moved for the mandatory cancellation of the first Notice of Pendency on the basis that the summons had not been served within thirty days of the filing of the Notice of Pendency. The Appellate Division in determining that the second Notice of Pendency should be cancelled stated in relevant part as follows: It is undisputed that a prior Notice of Pendency regarding the same property was cancelled due to the plaintiffs' failure to serve the summons within 30 days. Successive filings of Notices of Pendency under such circumstances are improper, and the plaintiff's second Notice of Pendency may not stand. ...Thus, on the basis of the prohibition against successive filings of Notices of Pendency against the same property and relating to the same controversy, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion to cancel the second Notice of Pendency pursuant to CPLR 6514 (a)...