Crandall v Equinox Holdings, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Crandall v Equinox Holdings, Inc. 2019 NY Slip Op 31961(U) July 2, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 157373/2018 Judge: Francis A. Kahn III Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2019 12:54 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 INDEX NO. 157373/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRE$ENT: HON. FRANCIS A. KAHN, Ill PART IAS MOTION 14 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------X SHANE CRANDALL, INDEX NO. MOTION DATE 157373/2018 3/29/2019 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -vEQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A EQUINOX FITNESS CLUB D/B/A EQUINOX, EQUINOX GREENWICH AVENUE, INC.,NICK HAMMOND, JOSE TAVERAS, MARTIN 'DOE', 'JOHN DOE' DECISION AND ORDER Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30, 31 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS Upon the foregoing documents, the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a][7] is determined as follows: This action arises out of a purported incident of sexual assault and harassment Plaintiff claims occurred at a fitness club operated by Defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Equinox Fitness Club D/B/A Equinox and Equinox Greenwich A venue ("Equinox"). Equinox operates a chain of high-end fitness clubs throughout the United States, including multiple locations in New York City. In his verified complaint, Plaintiff claims on August 9, 201 7 he was a member of Equinox's heath club and he was in a steam room at Equinox's location at 97 Greenwich Avenue, New York, New York. On that date, Plaintiff alleges an unnamed "member of Equinox" "began masturbating to and in close proximity of the plaintiff'. When he attempted to exit the steam room, Plaintiff alleges the unnamed "member of Equinox" "grabbed" and "held the plaintiff down and sexually assaulted the plaintiff." In paragraphs 25 and 30 of his complaint, Plaintiff alleges "EQUINOX had prior knowledge that its members were engaging in orgies, indecent exposure, masturbation, sexual assault, sexual harassment and lewd behavior in the men's steam rooms." Moreover, Plaintiff asserts in his pleading that despite such knowledge Equinox "intentionally looked the other way regarding the reprehensible conduct occurring in their steam rooms." In paragraphs 91 and 92 of the complaint, Plaintiff avers the "activity by the [unnamed "member of Equinox"] was reasonably predictable and foreseeable based on prior occurrences and knowledge" for "more than a decade ... of same or similar incidents involving inappropriate, lewd, sexual acts, indecent exposure, masturbation, and sexual solicitation, assault and sexual harassment taking place in the same steal [sic] room at the same fitness club." Plaintiff further claims Equinox has "marketed their health clubs as a place for sex'', that "sexual predators appear to be welcomed" and that it "encouraged and allowed to flourish sexual deviant behavior in their steam rooms." 157373/2018 CRANDALL, SHANE vs. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A Motion No. 001 1 of 5 Page 1of5 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2019 12:54 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 INDEX NO. 157373/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2019 Plaintiff alleges that Equinox management not only had prior knowledge of "sexual assa~lt" in their steam rooms, but that they "admitted they were aware of no less that twenty (20) previbusly reported incidents of sexual assault and indecent sexual acts which have occurred in the men's steam room". As to facts in support of these allegations, Plaintiff pleads, inter alia, the existence of three prior lawsuits filed in New York State against Equinox, including one concerning the location at issue here, in which claims of inappropriate sexual behavior, sexually deviant acts and sexual assaults were made. Plaintiff also notes that information regarding "lewd and disgusting sexual behavior that regularly occurred at EQUINOX's steam rooms" were published, prior to the alleged incident, in traditional and social media. Plaintiff pleaded that Equinox employees were aware of and regularly sought out this information. Further, Plaintiff alleged that in a 2005 New York Times article, "Steven Rosen, then chief operating officer of Equinox, admitted ... that unlawful and illicit sexual activity occurs in their steam rooms." Based upon these allegations, Plaintiff pled six causes of action against Equinox, to wit: [l] negligent hiring, training and supervision, [2] negligent security, [3] negligence, [4] breach of contract, [5] breach of implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing, and [6] civil conspiracy. Now, Equinox moves to dismiss the complaint as against Equinox Holdings, Inc. D/B/A Equinox Fitness Club D/B/A Equinox, Equinox Greenwich Avenue, Inc., Nick Hammond, and Jose Taveras for failure to state a claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 [a][7]. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR §3211 [a][7], the allegations contained in the complaint must be presumed to be true, liberally construed and a plaintiff must be accorded every possible favorable inference (see Chanko v American Broadcasting Cos. Inc., 27 NY3d46 [2016]; Palazzolo v Herrick, Feinstein, LLP, 298 AD2d 372 [2d Dept 2002]; Schulman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 268 AD2d 174 [2d Dept 2000]). In determining such a motion, "the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four comers factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law" (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]). In evaluating a pleading in this procedural context, not only must the facts and allegations contained therein presumed to be true (see 219 Broadway Corp. v. Alexander's, Inc., 46 NY2d 506 [ 1979]; Foley v D'Agostino, 21 AD2d 60 [1st Dept 1964]), but "whatever may be implied from its statements by reasonable intention" is required to be accepted (Natixis Real Estate Capital Trust 2007-HE2 v Natixis Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 149 AD3d 127 [1st Dept 2017]). "Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove [his or her] claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss" (Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 38 [2d Dept 2006]). While permitted to submit affidavits and evidence in support of its motion (see CPLR 3211 [c]["either party may submit any evidence that could properly be considered on a motion for summary judgment"]; see also also Rove/lo v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635 [1976]), movant eschewed this option and only attacked the pleading as insufficient on its face. 157373/2018 CRANDALL, SHANE vs. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A Motion No. 001 2 of 5 Page 2 of 5 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2019 12:54 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 INDEX NO. 157373/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2019 With respect to the negligence claims pled in causes of action two and three, Defendants ·argue the complaint does not contain sufficient facts to support a premises liability cause of action grounded in a claim of deficient security at Equinox's premises (see generally PJI 2:90). Such a cause of action lies when one in possession or control of property neglects to act reasonably by failing to control the foreseeable conduct of third-parties on the premises when able and aware of the need for such action (see D'Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 85 [1987]; Arreaga v 112 Dyckman Rest. Inc., 143 AD3d 646 [1st Dept 2016); see also Purdy v Public Adm'r of County of Westchester, 72 NY2d 1, 8 [1987]). Contrary to Defendants' arguments, Plaintiffs complaint is replete with facts and allegations which support the above requisites for pleading purposes. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that sexual assaults and illicit sexual activity regularly occurred in Equinox's steam rooms prior to his assault, that Equinox was aware of and admitted knowledge of same and that Equinox negligently and/or intentionally took no action despite this knowledge. That the allegations contained in the complaint may lack particularity or "material facts" in support is of no moment (see Melito v Interboro-Mutual Indem. Ins. Co., 73 AD2d 819, 820 [4th Dept 1979]). Particularity is not required in this type of negligence claim (CPLR 3016) and pleaded facts which simply give "notice" of the claims asserted are sufficient (CPLR 3013; Foley, supra at 63). Indeed, all manner of ostensibly unsupported allegations have been assumed to be true when the Court of Appeals has evaluated challenged pleadings (see Howard v Lecher, 42 NY2d 109 [1977][Court assumed as true "doctor was negligent in failing to take the proper measures to determine whether the fetus suffered from Tay-Sachs and that as a result of that negligence the parents permitted the pregnancy to run its course and the child to be born instead of seeking an abortion"]; Becker v Schwartz, 46 NY2d 401 [ 1978] [Accepted as true were allegations regarding defendants failure to inform plaintiffs of risks of a procedure and available tests as well as plaintiffs claim procedure would not have been underwent had they been informed]; see also Howard Stores Corp. v Pope, 1NY2d110 [1956][Assumed as true were allegations regarding the events precipitating a fire and as to negligence and causation]). The case authority relied upon by Defendants in support of this argument is entirely distinguishable both procedurally and substantively. Of the some 20 cases cited for authority on the issue of the sufficiency of the negligence claims, all but three were decided in a summary judgment or post-trial procedural context where evidence was measured. "Since [the] determination [here will be] made on pleadings alone, whether or not plaintiff will be able to establish his allegations by competent evidence is not a pertinent consideration" (Cohn v Lionel Corp., 21 NY2d 559 [1968]). The three procedurally comparable precedents (see Morris v Chase Bank, 125 AD3d 731 [2d Dept 2015]; Mills v Gardner, 106 AD3d 885 [2d Dept 2013]; Sugarman v Equinox Holding, Inc., 73 AD3d 654 [151 Dept 2010]), are substantively dissimilar since in each case the pleadings therein were entirely devoid of any facts or allegations to support the causes of action (see Morris, supra at 732 ["The complaint failed to allege that the attack upon the plaintiff by a thirdparty assailant was foreseeable"]; Mills supra at 886 ["the complaint simply alleged that Tompkins was negligent in allowing the attack to occur, without alleging any facts indicating that Tompkins had the authority, ability, and opportunity to control Gardner's actions necessary to give rise to a duty to prevent the attack"][emphasis added]; Sugarman, supra at 655 ["Plaintiff 157373/2018 CRANDALL, SHANE vs. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A Motion No. 001 3 of 5 Page 3 of 5 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2019 12:54 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 INDEX NO. 157373/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2019 failed to allege any facts that put defendant Equinox on notice that any criminal activity had occ~rred on the premises or that it would occur"][emphasis added] 1). Defendants' assertion that the facts in the complaint establish as a matter of law they discharged their duties to provide reasonable security measures is misplaced. To the extent the facts and allegations, taken in isolation, could be read to imply what Defendants' assert, the court must, in this procedural context, find all implications and inferences favor Plaintiff and view the complaint's as a whole (see eg Howard Stores Corp. v. Pope, 1 NY2d 110 [1956]; Hense v Baxter, 79 AD3d 814 [2d Dept 2010]; Stoianojfv Gahona, 248 AD2d 525 [2d Dept 1998]). As such, when viewed in its entirety, the complaint clearly does not demonstrate or admit Defendants fully discharged their duties to Plaintiff. It alleges precisely the opposite. Accordingly, the branch of the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs second and third causes of action is denied. Defendants' argument to dismiss the cause of action for negligent hiring, training and supervision is premised exclusively on the theory that these claims fail if the negligence cause of action is dismissed. Since the branch of the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs negligence claims has been denied, this branch of the motion necessarily fails. As to Plaintiffs fourth cause of action for breach of contract, specifically the membership agreement between Plaintiff and Equinox, it is entirely duplicative of his negligence causes of action, does not seek distinct damages and, therefore, must be dismissed (see Ulico Cas. Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d 1, 8-9 [1st Dept 2008]; Murray Hill lnvs. v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 305 AD2d 228, 229 [1st Dept 2003]; see also ClarkFitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 389 [1987]). Moreover, this cause of action is deficient since it does not identify the provision of the contract allegedly breached (see eg New York City Educ. Constr. Fund v Verizon NY. Inc., 114 AD3d 529 [!51 Dep 2014]). Plaintiffs fifth cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing similarly fails. Such a cause of action is nothing more than a breach of contract claim based upon terms not expressly contained in the contract (see Fasolino Foods Co., Inc. v Banca Nazionale de! Lavoro, 961F.2d1052 [2d Cir 1992]; see also Fishojf v Coty Inc., 634 F3d 647 [2d Cir 2011 ]). The terms that Plaintiff seeks implied in the contract are identical to those terms pied in the breach of contract claim, specifically that Equinox would have "proper security'', "sufficient and competent staff', "properly trained ... staffing", "make the fitness club a safe and secure environment" and prevent sexual assaults. As such, this claim is barred as duplicative of both the negligence and breach of contract claims2 • Plaintiffs sixth cause of action for civil conspiracy also fails. While allegations of conspiratorial conduct are acceptable "to connect the actions of separate defendants with an 1 A review of the complaint contained in the court records revealed a "bare bones" twelve paragraph cause of action asserted against Equinox which was not simply absent supporting facts, it lacked even a naked allegation of prior notice of similar activity. 2 A cause of action may be dismissed as duplicative of a previously dismissed cause of action (see An-Jung v Rower LLC, __ AD3d ~ 2019 NY Slip Op 04652 [I •1 Dept 2019)). 157373/2018 CRANDALL, SHANE vs. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A Motion No. 001 4 of 5 Page 4 of 5 [*FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2019 12:54 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 INDEX NO. 157373/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2019 otherwise actionable tort" (Alexander & Alexander v Fritzen, 68 NY2d 968, 969 [1986]), an ind4pendent claim therefor is not recognized in New York State (see eg Brackett v Griswold, 112 NY454 [1889]["a mere conspiracy to commit a fraud is never of itself a cause of action"]; American Baptist Churches v Galloway, 271 AD2d 92 [1st Dept 2000]). Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Defendants' motion is granted only to the extent that Plaintiffs fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action are dismissed. Defendant's motion is denied in all other respects. 7/2/2019 DATE CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: tf.'ID~~ ~·~HN UI 11 ~ CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D ttPr:INAL DISPOSITION DENIED GRANTED IN PART SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 157373/2018 CRANDALL, SHANE vs. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A Motion No. 001 5 of 5 D D J.S.C. OTHER REFERENCE Page 5 of 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.