Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	12. Commitments and Contingencies On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club, plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to certain trainers and assistant fitness managers. On or about June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to all New York purported hourly employees. On September 17, 2010, TSI, LLC made motions to dismiss the class action allegations of both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to certify the class actions. The court granted the motions on January 29, 2013, dismissing the class action allegations in both lawsuits. Following an appeal in April 2014, the Appellate Division upheld the dismissal. Currently, only the plaintiffs' individual claims remain pending. On September 22, 2009, in an action styled Town Sports International, LLC v. Ajilon Solutions, a division of Ajilon Professional Staffing LLC (Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 602911-09), TSI, LLC brought an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against Ajilon for, among other things, breach of contract seeking, among other things, money damages, in connection with Ajilon's failure to design and deliver to TSI, LLC a new sports club enterprise management system known as GIMS. Subsequently, on October 14, 2009, Ajilon brought a counterclaim against TSI, LLC alleging breach of contract, asserting, among other things, failure to pay outstanding invoices in the aggregate amount of approximately $2,900. Following a jury trial, a jury verdict was rendered on January 28, 2013, that awarded TSI, LLC damages against Ajilon in the amount of approximately $3,300, plus interest, and also awarded Ajilon damages against TSI, LLC in the amount of approximately $214, plus interest. After the trial court granted Ajilon's motion to set aside the part of the jury verdict that had rejected the bulk of Ajilon's counterclaim, the trial court increased the award of damages against TSI, LLC from approximately $214 to approximately $2,900, plus interest. The result is a net amount owed to TSI, LLC in the amount of approximately $400, plus interest. Both TSI and Ajilon filed a notice of appeal. On December 3, 2013, the appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of Ajilon's motion to set aside the jury verdict, vacated the damages award in favor of Ajilon, upheld the jury verdict that Ajilon had breached the contract and remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the damages to which TSI is entitled by reason of that breach. The trial for damages is scheduled for mid-September 2014. On February 7, 2007, in an action styled White Plains Plaza Realty, LLC v. TSI, LLC et al., the landlord of one of TSI, LLC's former health and fitness clubs filed a lawsuit in state court against it and two of its health club subsidiaries alleging, among other things, breach of lease in connection with the decision to close the club located in a building owned by the plaintiff and leased to a subsidiary of TSI, LLC, and take additional space in the nearby facility leased by another subsidiary of TSI, LLC. The trial court granted the landlord damages against its tenant in the amount of approximately $700, including interest and costs (“Initial Award”). TSI, LLC was held to be jointly liable with the tenant for the amount of approximately $488, under a limited guarantee of the tenant's lease obligations. The landlord subsequently appealed the trial court's award of damages, and on December 21, 2010, the appellate court reversed, in part, the trial court's decision and ordered the case remanded to the trial court for an assessment of additional damages, of approximately $750 plus interest and costs (the “Additional Award”). On February 7, 2011, the landlord moved for re-argument of the appellate court's decision, seeking additional damages plus attorneys' fees. On April 8, 2011, the appellate court denied the landlord's motion. On August 29, 2011, the Additional Award (amounting to approximately $900), was entered against the tenant, who has recorded a liability. TSI, LLC does not believe it is probable that TSI, LLC will be held liable to pay for any amount of the Additional Award. Separately, TSI, LLC is party to an agreement with a third-party developer, which by its terms provides indemnification for the full amount of any liability of any nature arising out of the lease described above, including attorneys' fees incurred to enforce the indemnity. In connection with the Initial Award (and in furtherance of the indemnification agreement), TSI, LLC and the developer have entered into an agreement pursuant to which the developer has agreed to pay the amount of the Initial Award in installments over time. The indemnification agreement also covers the Additional Award, and therefore the Tenant has recorded a receivable related to the indemnification. The developer did not pay the amount of the Additional Award to the landlord, and on October 13, 2011, the landlord commenced a special proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, to collect the Additional Award directly from the developer. A motion to dismiss the special proceeding made by the developer was denied by the court on March 13, 2012. On July 10, 2013, the appellate court denied the developer's appeal of that decision. On March 14, 2013, the landlord moved for summary judgment on its claim to recover the Additional Award directly from the developer and on March 25, 2013, the developer cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the special proceeding. On May 30, 2013, the court granted summary judgment to the landlord and denied the cross-motion for summary judgment of the developer. Judgment was entered against the developer on June 5, 2013 in the amount of approximately $1,045, plus interest. On June 13, 2013, the developer filed a notice of its intent to appeal the judgment. The appeal remains pending. On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a purported class action in New York State court on behalf of personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping obligations. The Court has bifurcated class and merits discovery. The deadline for the completion of pre-class certification discovery is December 31, 2014 and the deadline for a class certification motion is March 2, 2015. While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, TSI, LLC intends to contest this case vigorously. In addition to the litigation discussed above, the Company is involved in various other lawsuits, claims and proceedings incidental to the ordinary course of business, including personal injury and employee relations claims. The results of litigation are inherently unpredictable. Any claims against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time and result in diversion of significant resources. The results of these other lawsuits, claims and proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material either individually or in the aggregate.

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2014

12. Commitments and Contingencies

On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club, plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to certain trainers and assistant fitness managers. On or about June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to all New York purported hourly employees. On September 17, 2010, TSI, LLC made motions to dismiss the class action allegations of both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to certify the class actions. The court granted the motions on January 29, 2013, dismissing the class action allegations in both lawsuits. Following an appeal in April 2014, the Appellate Division upheld the dismissal. Currently, only the plaintiffs' individual claims remain pending.

On September 22, 2009, in an action styled Town Sports International, LLC v. Ajilon Solutions, a division of Ajilon Professional Staffing LLC (Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 602911-09), TSI, LLC brought an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against Ajilon for, among other things, breach of contract seeking, among other things, money damages, in connection with Ajilon's failure to design and deliver to TSI, LLC a new sports club enterprise management system known as GIMS. Subsequently, on October 14, 2009, Ajilon brought a counterclaim against TSI, LLC alleging breach of contract, asserting, among other things, failure to pay outstanding invoices in the aggregate amount of approximately $2,900. Following a jury trial, a jury verdict was rendered on January 28, 2013, that awarded TSI, LLC damages against Ajilon in the amount of approximately $3,300, plus interest, and also awarded Ajilon damages against TSI, LLC in the amount of approximately $214, plus interest. After the trial court granted Ajilon's motion to set aside the part of the jury verdict that had rejected the bulk of Ajilon's counterclaim, the trial court increased the award of damages against TSI, LLC from approximately $214 to approximately $2,900, plus interest. The result is a net amount owed to TSI, LLC in the amount of approximately $400, plus interest. Both TSI and Ajilon filed a notice of appeal. On December 3, 2013, the appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of Ajilon's motion to set aside the jury verdict, vacated the damages award in favor of Ajilon, upheld the jury verdict that Ajilon had breached the contract and remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the damages to which TSI is entitled by reason of that breach. The trial for damages is scheduled for mid-September 2014.

On February 7, 2007, in an action styled White Plains Plaza Realty, LLC v. TSI, LLC et al., the landlord of one of TSI, LLC's former health and fitness clubs filed a lawsuit in state court against it and two of its health club subsidiaries alleging, among other things, breach of lease in connection with the decision to close the club located in a building owned by the plaintiff and leased to a subsidiary of TSI, LLC, and take additional space in the nearby facility leased by another subsidiary of TSI, LLC. The trial court granted the landlord damages against its tenant in the amount of approximately $700, including interest and costs (“Initial Award”). TSI, LLC was held to be jointly liable with the tenant for the amount of approximately $488, under a limited guarantee of the tenant's lease obligations. The landlord subsequently appealed the trial court's award of damages, and on December 21, 2010, the appellate court reversed, in part, the trial court's decision and ordered the case remanded to the trial court for an assessment of additional damages, of approximately $750 plus interest and costs (the “Additional Award”). On February 7, 2011, the landlord moved for re-argument of the appellate court's decision, seeking additional damages plus attorneys' fees. On April 8, 2011, the appellate court denied the landlord's motion. On August 29, 2011, the Additional Award (amounting to approximately $900), was entered against the tenant, who has recorded a liability. TSI, LLC does not believe it is probable that TSI, LLC will be held liable to pay for any amount of the Additional Award. Separately, TSI, LLC is party to an agreement with a third-party developer, which by its terms provides indemnification for the full amount of any liability of any nature arising out of the lease described above, including attorneys' fees incurred to enforce the indemnity. In connection with the Initial Award (and in furtherance of the indemnification agreement), TSI, LLC and the developer have entered into an agreement pursuant to which the developer has agreed to pay the amount of the Initial Award in installments over time. The indemnification agreement also covers the Additional Award, and therefore the Tenant has recorded a receivable related to the indemnification. The developer did not pay the amount of the Additional Award to the landlord, and on October 13, 2011, the landlord commenced a special proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, to collect the Additional Award directly from the developer. A motion to dismiss the special proceeding made by the developer was denied by the court on March 13, 2012. On July 10, 2013, the appellate court denied the developer's appeal of that decision. On March 14, 2013, the landlord moved for summary judgment on its claim to recover the Additional Award directly from the developer and on March 25, 2013, the developer cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the special proceeding. On May 30, 2013, the court granted summary judgment to the landlord and denied the cross-motion for summary judgment of the developer. Judgment was entered against the developer on June 5, 2013 in the amount of approximately $1,045, plus interest. On June 13, 2013, the developer filed a notice of its intent to appeal the judgment. The appeal remains pending.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a purported class action in New York State court on behalf of personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping obligations. The Court has bifurcated class and merits discovery. The deadline for the completion of pre-class certification discovery is December 31, 2014 and the deadline for a class certification motion is March 2, 2015. While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, TSI, LLC intends to contest this case vigorously.

In addition to the litigation discussed above, the Company is involved in various other lawsuits, claims and proceedings incidental to the ordinary course of business, including personal injury and employee relations claims. The results of litigation are inherently unpredictable. Any claims against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time and result in diversion of significant resources. The results of these other lawsuits, claims and proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material either individually or in the aggregate.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details