DeLeon v. Dunaway

USDC SDNY MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DeLeon et al v. Dunaway et al, DATE FILED: 08/30/2022 7:22-cv-6039 (NSR) ————— The Court is in receipt of the attached moving papers from pro se Defendant Douglas Dunaway, filed August 29, 2022, seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint on several bases. The Court is also in receipt of the attached letter from pro se Defendant Douglas Dunaway, dated August 26, 2022, but entered August 29, 2022, with a suggestion of death under FRCP 25 of his wife and named co-defendant Maria Louise Dunaway. With respect to the filed moving papers, the Court recognizes that “pro se litigants may in general deserve more lenient treatment than those represented by counsel.” McDonald v. Head Criminal Court Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir. 1988). However, that a party proceeds pro se “does not exempt [the] party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court DENIES pro se Defendant Douglas Dunaway’s motion to dismiss without prejudice with leave to refile for failure to follow this Court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases.' See Sec. 3.A.ii (“A pre-motion conference with the Court is required before making any other motion . . . . To arrange a pre-motion conference, the moving party shall submit a letter, not to exceed three pages, setting forth the basis for the anticipated motion. The opposing party shall submit a letter, also not to exceed three pages, setting forth its position within three business days from the service of the moving party’s letter. If a premotion conference is requested in connection with a proposed motion to dismiss, the request will stay the deadline for the requesting party to move or answer, and a new deadline will be set at the conference.”). Additionally, the Court REMINDS pro se Defendant Douglas Dunaway, as it did in its endorsement issued yesterday (see ECF No. 20), that he may only make filings on his own behalf and not on behalf of his other pro se co-Defendants, as he did in his motion to dismiss. See In re Texaco Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litig., 123 F. Supp. 2d 169, 172 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“Tt is well-established . . . that th[e] right to proceed pro se does not encompass the right to proceed pro se on behalf of the interests of another.” (citing cases)). Again, if the pro se Defendants in this case wish to make a joint request, they must expressly note it as such in the applicable filing and each pro se Defendant must sign the applicable filing. And with respect to the filed suggestion of death, in view thereof, the Court hereby STAYS this action for 90 days, or November 28, 2022. The Court directs the parties to FRCP 25(a)(1), which provides that “[a] motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days of service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.” ’ Available at: https://www nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-nelson-s-roman. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 21, mail a copy of this memorandum endorsement to pro se Defendants Douglas and Michael Dunaway’s at their address on 4 Staub Court, Mamaroneck, NY 10543, and show service on the docket. Dated: August 30, 2022 SO ORDERED: White Plains, NY □□ > fr . £- ee ———— “NELSONS. ROMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ————————— UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Jason DeLeon, Ana Carraca-DeLeon Ariela Rosa Mori-Gehring and Walter Gehring ae ieee ee ee Write the full name of each plaintiff or petitioner. . Case No. 7:22 cv 06039 NSR -against- Douglas Dunaway, Maria Louise Dunaway NOTICE OF MOTION a and Michael Dunaway Write the full name of each defendant or respondent. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Douglas Dunaway plaintiff or defendant name of party who is making the motion requests that the Court: Dismiss the compliant in its entirety pursuant to FRCP 12(B) due to 1. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 2. Lack of personal jurisdiction; 3.Improper venue: 4. Insufficiency of process; 9. Failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted; 6. Failure to join the Village of Mamaroneck Police Department as a party and for such other and further relief as the Court Deems fit. Briefly describe what you want the court to do. You should also include the Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure or the statute under which you are making the motion, if you know. In support of this motion, I submit the following documents (check all that apply): a memorandum of law fx] my own declaration, affirmation, or affidavit C) the following additional documents: August 30,2022 “ = “Dated Mtge — Douglas Dunaway ) Name Prison Identification # (if incarcerated) 4 Staub Court Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Address City State Zip Code (914) 698-9215 Telephone Number (if available) E-mail Address (if available) SDNY Rev: 5/24/2016 —————— UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Jason DeLeon, Ana Carraca-DeLeon Ariela Rosa Mori-Gehring and Walter Gehring Fill in above the full name of each plaintiff or petitioner. Case No. 7:22 Cv 06039NSR -against- Douglas Dunaway, Maria Louise Dunaway and Michael Dunaway ce eg ee Fill in above the full name of each defendant or respondent. DECLARATION | Douglas Dunaway, a defendant, herein submit this declaration in support of es EE Oe my motion to dismiss the compliant pursuant to FRCP 12b. i a Briefly explain above the purpose of the declaration, for example, “in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.” 1, Douglas Dunaway , declare under penalty of perjury that the following facts are true and correct: In the space below, describe any facts that are relevant to the motion or that respond to a court order. You may also refer to and attach any relevant documents. | have read the compliant in its entirety and it is essentially a smear compliant by the plaintiffs and their attorney. The compliant lists specific acts that are not specifically assigned to any defendants The compliant is incendiary and designed to enrage the court, gain and court the attention of the media and to the cost of myself and my family. Essentially, | am being accused of fraud, false reporting and various criminal activities. Why are there no arrest records? This isn't a civil compliant is is a criminal compliant. Itis alleging that my family and myself somehow conspired with th behavior. This matter has been in the media and this is a shameless money grab. The matter belongs in state court eee SS Because the allegations listed by plaintiffs are necessary conclusive statements with no direct allegations against myself, en Rev. 6/30/16 the compliant against me must be dismissed. There is a thinly veiled allegation that my family and Thave taken advantage of my wife’s so-called governmental connections because of her position as a clerk? That not a compliant that_can be tried without adjoining the police department. Plaintiffs cannot cherry pick who they prosecute. i i ee nn ne a i rc a er a ay ep Ei etn RR eee, a a ee a a ee ee a erences Sse a ge i eee gr i a “Attach additional pages and documents ifnecessary. ``~ August 30, 2022 Executed on (date) Signature Douglas Dunaway ( l / { Pe Lt a | “Name □□ Prison Idéptification # (if incarcera 4 Staub Court Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Address City State Zip Code (914) 698-9215 Telephone Number (if available) E-mail Address (if available) Page 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case No.: 7:22-cv-06039-NSR JASON DELEON, ANA CARRACA-DELEON, ARIELA ROSA MORI-GEHRING, and WALTER GEHRING, + te Memorandum of Law In Support of Maintitts, Dismissal Pursuant to FRCP 12. -against- DOUGLAS DUNAWAY, MARIA LOUISE DUNAWAY, and MICHAEL DUNAWAY, Defendants, Defendant, Douglas Dunaway respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of the motion to dismiss the complaint as against Douglas Dunaway. ARGUMENT In diversity cases, courts apply the law of the forum state to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists. Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 148 F.3d 181, 183-84 (2d Cir. 1998). In federal courts in New York, the Court considers whether (1) the defendant is subject to either general personal jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 301 or specific jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302; and (2) exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with the constitutional requirements of due process. See, e.g., Verragio, Ltd. v. Malakan Diamond Co., No. 16 Civ. 4634 (CM), 2016 WL 6561384, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2016). Regardless of the theory of personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff must articulate some factual basis stating at least a prima facie claim of personal jurisdiction. See Continental Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Equate Petrochemical Co., 586 Fed. App'x 768, 769 (2d Cir. 2014) (plaintiff “cannot establish jurisdiction through conclusory assertions alone” but must “establish{] jurisdiction with some factual specificity”) (citation omitted); Jazini, 148 F.3d at 185 (“conclusory statements— without any supporting facts—that I specifically deprived or plaintiffs of the use of their property etc.,lack the factual specificity necessary to confer personal jurisdiction); see also Mandel v. Busch Entm't Corp., 215 A.D.2d 455, 455, 626 N.Y.S.2d 270, 271 (1995) (“In this case, neither the complaint nor the plaintiffs’ opposition papers have set forth even conclusory allegations regarding a prospective basis upon which the court could exercise in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.”). The Complaint is devoid of any factual basis for jurisdiction over me. To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must “support the viability of its claims by pleading sufficient non conclusory factual matter to set forth a claim that is plausible on its face.” _ EE.O.C. v. Port Auth, of N.Y. & N.J., 768 F.3d 247, 253 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The Court must “accept all allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party’s favor,” but need not accord “[I]egal conclusions, deductions or opinions couched as factual allegations . . . a presumption of truthfulness.” In re NYSE Specialists Sec. Litig., 503 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). And where, as here, the claims depend on interpretation of a contract, the Court “may dismiss the complaint where [the] contract[] [is] unambiguous and do[es] not support the plaintiff[’s] claim.” Soroof Trading Dev. Co. v. GE Fuel Cell Sys., LLC, 842 F. Supp. 2d 502, 509-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting FlightSafety Int'l, Inc. v. Flight Options, LLC, 418 F. Supp. 2d 103, 107 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction through sufficient allegations. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S, 555, 561 (1992). Courts should “presume that [they] lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.” Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 316 (1991) (citations omitted). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the district court may refer to evidence outside the pleadings, such as documents or affidavits, without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. All. for Envti, Renewal, Inc. v. Pyramid Crossgates Co., 436 F.3d 82, 88 □□□ (2d Cir. 2006). To win a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff's complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “plausibility” standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), “a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, . .. documents incorporated by reference in the complaint[,|” “document[s] ‘integral’ to the complaint,” and “matters of which judicial notice may be taken.” MMA Consultants I, Inc. v. Republic of Peru, 245 F. Supp. 3d 486, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (citations omitted), Further, “when faced with a motion to dismiss in the APA context, a court may consider the administrative record and public documents without converting the motion into a motion for summary judgment,” Bates v. Donley, 935 F. Supp. 2d 14, 17 (D.D.C, 2013) (citing Rempfer v. Sharfstein, 583 F.3d 860, 865 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[6] sets forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether an action must be dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party. See Associated Dry Goods Corp. v. Towers Fin. Corp., 920 F.2d 1121, 1123 (2d Cir. 1990). The first prong focuses on whether the parties should be joined if feasible. Specifically, Rule 19(a) provides, in relevant part: A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposition of the action in the person's absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.... Under the second prong, Rule 19(b), a court must determine whether it can proceed in equity and good conscience without that party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b). Unless Rule 19(a)'s threshold standard is met, however, the court need not consider whether dismissal under Rule 19(b) is warranted. Associated Dry Goods Corp. v. Towers Fin. Corp., 920 F.2d 1121, 1123 (2d Cir.1990). Here as alleged against me, I along with my entire family have made fraudulent reports to the police, the police have supposedly allowed themselves to be manipulated by my family and as a result the rights of the plaintiffs have been violated? An objection to standing is properly made on a Rule 12(b) (1) motion. See, e.g., Steel Co. vy. Citizens for a Better Environment, *355 523 U.S. 83, 88-89, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 140 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1998) (contrasting standing, an issue implicating a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction, with the failure to state a cognizable claim, which is not a jurisdictional defect). A court, moreover, has an "independent obligation" to consider a party's standing even if the parties fail to raise the issue. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S, 215, 230-31, 110 S. Ct. 596, 107 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1990). To establish Article III standing the plaintiff must demonstrate that a "case or controversy" exists. Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99, 99 S. Ct. 1601, 60 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1979). At a minimum, the plaintiff must show three elements: (1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal nexus between the complained-of conduct and the injury, and (3) redressability of the injury. See, generally, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 8. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992); see also Gladstone, 441 U.S. at 99, 99 S. Ct. 1601 ("In order to satisfy Art. III, the plaintiff must show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conan of the defendant."). "[i]t is a long-settled principle that standing cannot be ‘inferred argumentatively from averments in the pleadings.'" FW/PBS, Inc., 493 U.S. at 231, 1108S. Ct. 596 (quoting Grace y. American Central ins. Co., 109 U.S. 278, 284, 3 S. Ct. 207, 27 L. Ed. 932 (1883)). Thus, plaintiff cannot establish standing simply by resting on conclusory allegations in the complaint. Instead, he must make some affirmative factual showing that he is entitled to have the court hear his case. See, e.g., Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 518, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1975) ("It is the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers."); Thompson v. County of Franklin, 15 F.3d 245, 249 (2d Cir.1994), Plaintiffs have not done this, as he has shown nothing outside the pleadings to suggest that he has suffered any personal injury, by me either actual or threatened. Additionally the request for injunctive relief must also be dismissed. The request for injunctive relief alone is fatal because Article III allows courts to remedy only the invasion of a legally protected interest that is both "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent," but not one that is merely "conjectural or hypothetical" in nature. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992); see also Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 109 L. Ed. 2d 135 (1990). In particular, with reference to the facts at hand, in a complaint challenging the validity of a contract, typically only the actual or alleged party to the contract is in a position to challenge its validity. See, e.g., Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U.S. 304, 309, 18 S. Ct. 617, 42 L. Ed. 1047 (1898). In delimiting "federal question" or "arising under" jurisdiction, Congress has conferred upon the lower federal courts "jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law." Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28, 103 S. Ct. 2841, 77 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1983); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987) (describing the "well-pleaded complaint rule"). The mere inclusion of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not guarantee the presence of federal question jurisdiction; the federal question must also be substantial as opposed to a minor, technical addition to a state claim. See, e.g., Travelers Indem. Co. v. Sarkisian, 794 F.2d 754, 762 (2d Cir.1986); see also D'Alessio v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 258 F.3d 93, 99 (2d Cir.2001), cert. denied, U.S. __, 122 S.Ct. 666, __ L.Ed.2d___ (2001). There is no federal question as applied to me. Finally, Plaintiffs claims fail because Plaintiff has not alleged any specific act by any specific Defendant, instead attempting to lump the Defendants together as one, in violation of Rule 8(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Atuahene v. City of Hartford, 10 Fed. App’x 33, 34 (2d Cir. 2001) (“By lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, [plaintiff's] complaint failed to satisfy this minimum standard”); Medina v. Bauer, No. 02 CIV. 8837(DC), 2004 WL 136636, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2004) (“lumping all the defendants together and failing to distinguish their conduct” failed to satisfy Rule 8 and “fail[ed] to give adequate notice to these defendants as to what they did wrong”); see also GHC Motion to Dismiss. As Plaintiffs attempt at group pleading is not permitted by Rule 8, the Complaint should be dismissed on this ground as well. For the reasons stated herein, I respectfully ask the court to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. pela Defendant □□ . □□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK . Case No.: 7:22-cv-06039-NSR JASON DELEON, ANA CARRACA-DELEON, ARIELA ROSA MORI-GEHRING, and WALTER GEHRING, Plaintiffs Statement Pursuant to Rule 25 -against- DOUGLAS DUNAWAY, MARIA LOUISE DUNAWAY, and MICHAEL DUNAWAY, Defendants. Defendant, Douglas Dunaway, husband and next of kin to defendant MARIA LOUISE DUNAWAY respectfully, pursuant to 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure submits this statement and/or suggestion of the death of Maria Louise Dunaway. Annexed herewith is the death certificate. Rule 25(a)(1) provides as follows: If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent's successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 25(a)(1). Under the Rule, serving a “statement noting the death”, i.e., a suggestion of death, triggers a ninety (90) day period during which a motion for substitution should be filed. The Rule not specifically identify who has authority to serve the statement, but does state that a motion for may be made by a party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. Dated Westchester New York DOUGLAS DUNAWAY . August 26, 2022 G7 GJ Cun gf Defendant =. .= = ~ DEATH TRANSCRIPT — eee GS ge ee TS □□ □□ □□□ DATEFILED THECITY OF NEW YORK = DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE NEW YORK CITY CERTIFICATE OF DEATH Certificate No. 456.99.033277 : ‘DEPARTM ENT OF HEALTH : = 5 □ ANDMENTAL HYGIENE a = Jul 19, 2022-01-11 PM = □□ 1. DECEDENT'S LEGAL NAME MARIA L__ DUNAWAY (First, Middle, Last, Suffix) 2a. New York City Jag. Typo of Place 41 Nursing Home/Long Tarm Care Facllty | 2d. Any Haspice cara | 2e, Name of hospital or athar facility {if not lacility, street address} | Place &t Hospital Inpatient 5 U Hospice Facility in last 30 days : : = of | 22: Borough 1O ves ie 20 Emenency Dept/Outpatiant 6 C1 Decadent’s Rasidence 2 No □□ Manhattan [30 Dead on Arival 7 Omer Specty Mount Sinai West 2) Date time [aa (Mami (Day) “Wearyyyy) 3h.Time am 5, Date last attended by a Physician (22) mm ad yy 2) 16 2022 2:59 BPM Female 07 16 2022 %. |.centty that death occurred at the time, date and place indicated and that to the bast of my knowledge traumatic injury or poisaning DID NOT play any part in causing death, fry death did net occur in any unusual manner and was due eniirely te NATURAL CAUSES, See instructions on reverse of certificate, peo. Ae = : M.D. ne oe Name-of Medical Certifier JIN YOON Signature Yin Gfoon RRA = ti ‘ype or Print) =. = _ Signature Electronically Authenticated | 1900 10th Ave New York, NY 10019 nity License No. 354967 ~ pate JUL-16-2022 | 7a. Usual Residence State | 7b. County = 76sCity.or Town 7d. Steet and Number Apt. No. ZIP Code Te, inside Gry = 7 “mk imits? New York Westchester | Mamaroneck | 4 Staub Ct 10543 18 Yes □□□□ §. Date of Binh — (Month) (Day) {Year-yyyy)- | 9. Age at last birthday © 5 | Under 1 Year Under 1 Day ' 10. Social Security No. “a (years) =| Months [Days |~ Hours Minutes 2 December 20) 1946 ae aes ty ee 5 =| 061-38-5640 Usual Occupation (Type of work done ¢ during most ol working fifa | 1ib. Kind of business orindusty. | 12. Aliasesor AKAs 4 “reli i ee □□ ee ' Clerk Courts Maria Louise Dunaway 13. Birthplace (City & State or Foreign Country}-| 14, Education (Check the box that best dascribes the highest degree or level of school completad at the time of death) □□ = 292 | 101 8th grade orless; none —_ Some college credit, butnodegrée = 7D) Master's degree (e.g. MA, MS, MEng, MEd, MSW, MBA) 5! Italy = =| 206th 42th grade; nodiplomia> 52). Associate Gegroe (e:g., AA, AS) 8 Doctorate (o.g. PhD, Edd) or @o || 9 GPHigh stheol graduatear GED 6) Bachelor's degree (e.g, BA, AB, BS) Professional degree (e.9., MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, J) 15, U.S, 16, Marita Pannership Status at-time of death a) 17. Surviving Spousa's/Partner's Nama (prior.torlirst marriage){First, Middle, Last) Armed Forces? |438Married = 20} Domeste Partnership. 3 4 Divorced 40 Married, but separated 50) Never Married 6 C1 Widowed | See nh : PEM room, Specily —— + ______-_"pQuninows-| Douglas Dunaway = = 18. Father/Parent Name {Prior to first marriage) (First, Middle. Last} ~ | 18. Mothet/Parent Name (Prior 16 first mariage) (First, Middle, Last) ze Eleuterio Grimaldi wit : Bianca Unavailable : Ss 4 res 20a. Intormant's Nama 7 _)20b. Aelationship to.Decedem - |200, Address {Sweet and Number Apte No, City & State ZIP Code) “are 2 ly ee Mee Douglas Dunaway == 25 goSpouse: 4 Staub Ct Ma maroneck, NY 10543 =] 21a. Method of Disposition So see = 216. Plage of Disposition (Name ol cemetary, cramatory, other place) 20) Cremation 3 @Entombment __ 4S) City Cemetery Ss a 3 5 © Other Specify == . Saar +o ) St. Mary's Cemetery ff □ te 21¢. Location of Disposition (City & State or Foreign Country): : 7 es 2 121d. Date of mm dd yyy = erg □□□ a adel Disposition -| {Rye Brook, New York i ee eS or 212022 Estabighment= [B2b Address (Street and Number Gily& Stata Ze = Coxe & Graziano Funeral Home L 767 E Boston Post Rd Mamaroneck, NY 10543 No Correction History.*** a 23 = arf = Pas : = oS : = == = : {Rov 01/20) EVI2MOTMSTL == GS Ee =: July 19, 2022 This is to certify that the foregoing Is a true copy of a record on file in the Department of Health kK Ms fox □□□ ==». and Mental Hygiene. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene does not certify tothe truth of cng: é A; Yo □□ TO the statements made thereon, as no inquiry as to the facts has been provided. by law. (erm. □□ Oo not accept this transcript unless it bears the security features listed on the back. Reproduction — eh □□ 7 — 0 alteration of this transcript is prohibited by §8.19(b) of the New York City-Health Code # the [Ml Variceal □□□□□□ purpose is the evasion or violation of any provision of the Health Code or any other law. 3a aa ss Oe NORE □□ □□□ □ □□ □□ THE CITY OF NEW YORK — DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL REPORT To be filed in by FUNERAL DIRECTOR or, in case of City Burial, by Physician CertificateNo. 156-22-033277 23. Ancestry (Check one box and 24. Race as defined by the U.S, Census (Chock ane or mare to . Speciy| indkal what the decederd considerad himesif'cr herself to ba} A Hispanic (Mexican, Puerta Jos White 02 SJ Black or Atican American: Rican, Cuaan, Damincan, ste.) 93 ©) american indian or Alaska Native (Name of enrofed ot Pancipaltioe) Specly__ pa 2) Asian tnetian 65 Chinese . _ 06S Fiiping 07 S Japanese □ #4 NOT Hispanic (makin, Atican |e 5 Koroan 29 i Vietnamese —s ie Pakistan, fio Comer Asian-Spscify— Titan etc.) ate " — Hawaiian 12 2 Guamanian or Chamorro 13.0 Semaan EB vg ltalian 14 2 Other Pacilic Istander-Specity MARIA _L_DUNAWAY □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Over-Speciy_—________| DECEDENT'S LEGAL NAME acanan 25. CAUSE OF DEATH — List ony ona causa on gach Ene, DONOT ASSREVIATE. i $i APPR INTERVAL: ja IMMEDIATE CAUSE □□ Septic Shock da & DUE TO ORAS A CONSEQUENCE OF | Intraabdominal Abscess weeks #@ | c. DUE TO OR AS A CONSEQUENSE OF Stage 4 Cecal Adenocarcinoma | months ¢. DUE TO OR AS A CONSEQUENCE CF | □ Tri ! OTHER SIGNIFICANT CONDMIONS. CONTRIBUTING TO DEATH but not fesultng in the underlying cause given m Part |. indude operation information. i wee 23a. Was an autopsy performed?! 27a, li Female □□□ it pregnara within one year 28. Was this case | iaYes 2@No | 1 S Not pregnantwithir 1 year ofdeath ofdeath, outcome of pregnancy . □□□□□□□□□□ OCME? | Dob Ware acne, tone 42 Pregnant at time of dazth +o Live Bith mm dd 280. ee a 3 pregnant at death, but pregaant within 43 days of death 2.0 Spontaneous Termination! 13 Yes couee + --1Not pregnant at cath. bul pregnant 43 days to 1 year Eton Pregnancy eee | Gee | ee □ □□ LaYes 20)Ne § “1 Unitnown it pregnant win + year af death 3 induced Termination 45} None : 29. Did tobacco use contntute to death? 30. Fer infart under one year: Name and address of bespite! cr other place of birth 1oYes 24No 3CiProbabiy 40) Unknown| Tam submitting hare yith.g confidential report of the cause of death. sicnatune (477 (4007) mp, Aooress 1000 10t 10019-1147 ucenseno. 354967 f Sicnigire biectfovcaly Rinanteaten “i . □□□