This action is subject to dismissal unless the plaintiff, Jae Soog Lee, provides the Court and the parties with an address and telephone number where she can be served and/or contacted for purposes of this action. See Hayes v. Shield, No. 11 Civ. 03714, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107829, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2012), adopted by, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107828 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2012) ("[A] plaintiff has a general obligation to prosecute his case diligently and to keep the Court apprised of his current mailing address, and, if he fails to do so, the Court may dismiss the action under Rule 41(b), for failure to prosecute."); Pratt v. Behari, No.11 Civ. 6167, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41212, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2012) ("The case cannot proceed without a current address for the plaintiff and the failure to maintain such an address with the Court is a ground for [dismissal for] failure to prosecute."); Hibbert v. Apfel, No. 99-4246, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9791, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2000) (granting defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. P. 41(b) for plaintiff's failure to make any contact with the court or defendant, failure to respond to attempts to contact her, failure to respond to court orders and failure to provide the court with a change of address).