runs from “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Prisoners such as petitioner, however, whose convictions became final prior to AEDPA’s ef L.Ed.2d 63 (2000); Geraci v. Senkowski, 211 F.3d 6, 9 (2d Cir.2000) (tolling ends when the state court renders its decision). 2. Equitable Tolling A petitioner seeking equitable tolling must show that “extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing his petition on time.” McGinnis, 208 F.3d at 17. A petitioner also “must have acted with reasonable diligence throughout the period he seeks to toll.” Id.; see, e.g., Montalvo v. Strack, No. 99 Civ. 5087, 2000 .WL 718439, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7563 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2000) (<HOLDING>). B. Application Petitioner was convicted in
holding that a complaint filed within three years of an accident complied with the michigan court rules and was not barred by the statute of limitations even though service was made more than three years after the accident holding that delay for three and onehalf years was unreasonable under rule 60b6 holding that three denied promotions over the course of three years where the decisions were made by three different selection officials and involved different qualifications were not sufficiently related to constitute a continuing violation holding that delay in excess of three years after conclusion of direct review does not constitute reasonable diligence holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable