JOHN KOELTL, District Judge
The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this Court's May 7, 2007 Memorandum Opinion and Order is denied.
The plaintiff alleges that his attorney never received a copy of the original Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2002 dismissing without prejudice the Amended Complaint. The docket sheet reflects that the Order was in fact mailed and that mailing would have been sent to the plaintiff's attorney at the time. Moreover, the docket sheet also reflects that the Judgment together with notice of the right to appeal was also mailed. "[P]arties have an obligation to monitor the docket sheet to inform themselves of the entry of orders they wish to appeal." United States ex rel. McAllan v. City of New York, 248 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam); see also Neishlos v. City of New York, 00 Civ. 914, 2003 WL 22990083, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2003). In any event, the plaintiff has failed to explain why the numerous additional reasons provided by the Court in its May 7, 2007 Memorandum Opinion and Order should be ignored, including the fact that the plaintiff waited over four years to make any motion before this Court to be relieved of the Court's July 29, 2002 Opinion and Order. See Rodriguez v. Mitchell, 252 F.3d 191, 201 (2d Cir. 2001) (three and one-half year delay unreasonable).
The application is denied.
SO ORDERED