Such relief was properly denied, since plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the extensive delays in prosecuting the action both before and after the demand ( see Walker v. City of New York, 46 AD3d 278, 280 [2007];Garcia v. Del Pacifico, 299 A.D.2d 188 [2002] ). Plaintiff's claimed reliance on an unnamed court employee's purported advice that the demand was not valid did not constitute a reasonable excuse ( see Caraballo v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 89 AD3d 638 [2011] ), particularly in view of plaintiff's pattern of dilatory behavior in prosecuting the case (Cato v. City of New York, 70 AD3d 471 [2010];Perez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 47 AD3d 505 [2008] ). As plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the failure to prosecute, we need not address whether she provided sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a meritorious cause of action ( see Michaels v. Sunrise Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc., 65 AD3d 1021, 1024 [2009] ).
To the extent that the copy of the preliminary conference order in defense counsel's possession was illegible, a legible copy could have been obtained from adversary counsel, or the original could have been viewed in and copied from the County Clerk's file. Given that rule 17 of the New York County Supreme Court, Civil Branch, Rules of the Justices provides that the 120 day period can be shortened in a particular case in the preliminary conference order, and the court did so in the preliminary conference order, proposed by and agreed to by the attorneys for the parties signing the proposed order, reliance on a purported comment by a Part Clerk as to the Part's general practice was inadequate to establish good cause for the late motion (see Caraballo v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 89 AD3d 638, 639 [1st Dept 2011] ["Plaintiff's purported reliance on an unnamed court employee's directive to complete the discovery process then file (the) Note of Issue is not a reasonable excuse" (internal quotation marks omitted)]; Frazzetta v. P.C. Celano Contr., 54 AD3d 806, 809 [2nd Dept 2008] [the plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on a law clerk's view that compliance with deadlines was not mandatory]; Rose v 735 Realty Co., LLC, 36 Misc 3d 145 (A), 2012 NY Slip Op 51603(U) [App Term, 1st Dept 2012] ["Plaintiff's claimed reliance on an unnamed court employee's purported advice that the demand was not valid did not constitute a reasonable excuse"]). Finally, the First Department has made it clear that the court does not have the power to consider a summary judgment motion filed beyond a court set deadline, but within the statutory 120 days, unless good cause is demonstrated for the delay (see Glasser v Abramovitz, 37 AD3d 194 [2007]).