on the part of plaintiffs attorney is insufficient to justify application of an equitable toll.”). Attorney neglect falls within the “garden variety claims of excusable neglect” to which equitable tolling does not apply. Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96, 111 S.Ct. 453 (refusing to apply equitable tolling where plaintiff failed to file a timely claim because plaintiffs lawyer was out of his office when the EEOC notice was received). Likewise, to the extent that this miscommunication may have resulted from Plaintiffs neglect, the same principle applies; Plaintiffs actions amounted to no more than excusable neglect undeserving of equitable tolling. See McClendon v. Bronx Cnty. Dist. Attorneys Office, No. 09 Civ. 03632(WGY), 764 F.Supp.2d 626, 631, 2011 WL 507090, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2011) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Plaintiff points to the “mere six
holding that a letter clearly threatened litigation when it purported to be from an attorney and declared that we have the legal right to file a lawsuit holding that defendants failure to disclose sublease did not cause breachofcontract damages because plaintiffs deal fell through for reasons independent of failure to notify plaintiff holding that plaintiffs failure to notify attorney of receipt of right to sue letter and failure to confirm that the attorney had received the letter did not warrant the application of equitable tolling holding attorney lacked standing to challenge amount of attorney fees awarded plaintiffs not parties to the appeal holding that a corporate plaintiffs claims must be dismissed on the ground of failure of any attorney to appear for the corporation