Fruzzetti v. Corfinio Rest. C.E.O., 21-P-1057

CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts
PartiesLEE FRUZZETTI v. CORFINIO RESTAURANT C.E.O.
Docket Number21-P-1057
Decision Date17 June 2022

LEE FRUZZETTI
v.

CORFINIO RESTAURANT C.E.O.

No. 21-P-1057

Appeals Court of Massachusetts

June 17, 2022


Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The pro se plaintiff, Lee Fruzzetti, appeals from the allowance of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Corfinio Restaurant C.E.O. We affirm.

Background. The following material facts are not in dispute.[1] On January 28, 2018, at approximately 9 P.M., the plaintiff drove past the defendant's restaurant and noticed a car belonging to his former girlfriend, Heidi Cooper, parked in the parking lot. The plaintiff stopped in the parking lot and observed Cooper inside with a male companion, Michael Varner. The restaurant closed at 9 P.M., and at the time, the doors were locked to patrons entering. The plaintiff approached a

1

restaurant window and began yelling at Cooper. Cooper and Varner came out of the restaurant, and the two men (the plaintiff and Varner) began sparring, without any blows landing. The plaintiff appeared to wield a weapon which was later determined to be a key fob with a key that opened with a spring motion. When the sparring ended and the plaintiff returned to his truck, Varner followed him and kicked the side of the plaintiff's truck. The plaintiff left the parking lot, and Varner returned to the inside of the restaurant.[2]

The plaintiff commenced this action which, as characterized by the judge, alleged that the defendant negligently overserved Varner alcohol and negligently failed to provide security. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and a Superior Court judge ruled that the plaintiff failed to present any record evidence that either Varner was intoxicated or that the defendant had overserved him.[3] Moreover, the judge concluded that, on the record presented, the defendant owed no duty to prevent Varner from leaving the restaurant in order to provide security to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the judge entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

2

Discussion.

The thrust of the plaintiff's argument on appeal is that that the judge should not have granted summary judgment for the defendant without allowing further discovery. The plaintiff does not cite to any relevant legal authority to support his argument, and as a result, his claim fails to rise to the level of adequate appellate argument. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a)...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT