Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	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, which dismissals were upheld by the Appellate Division in April 2014. 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 and a jury verdict on January 28, 2013, subsequent appeals by both parties resulted in an appellate court reversal which vacated the damages and remanded for new trial on the damages to which TSI was entitled. At the new trial on September 2, 2014, the trial court re-instated a damages award of $214, plus interest, to Ajilon. In February 2015, Ajilon and TSI, LLC entered into a settlement agreement, releasing each other from all claims related to the Ajilon litigation. 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, the tenant, and take additional space in a nearby facility leased by another subsidiary of TSI, LLC. Following a determination of an initial award, which TSI, LLC and the tenant have paid in full, the landlord appealed the trial court’s award of damages, and on August 29, 2011, an additional award (amounting to approximately $900) (the “Additional Award”), was entered against the tenant, which has recorded a liability. 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. As a result, the developer reimbursed TSI, LLC and the tenant the amount of the initial award in installments over time and also agreed to be responsible for the payment of the Additional Award, and the tenant has recorded a receivable related to the indemnification for the Additional Award. The developer and the landlord are currently litigating the payment of the Additional Award and 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. TSI, LLC does not believe it is probable that TSI, LLC will be required to pay for any amount of the Additional Award. 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 document discovery was 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. The Company establishes accruals for loss contingencies when it has determined that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. Any such accruals are adjusted thereafter as appropriate to reflect changes in circumstances. As of December 31, 2014, the company has not concluded that an accrual for any such matters is required.

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, which dismissals were upheld by the Appellate Division in April 2014.

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 and a jury verdict on January 28, 2013, subsequent appeals by both parties resulted in an appellate court reversal which vacated the damages and remanded for new trial on the damages to which TSI was entitled. At the new trial on September 2, 2014, the trial court re-instated a damages award of $214, plus interest, to Ajilon. In February 2015, Ajilon and TSI, LLC entered into a settlement agreement, releasing each other from all claims related to the Ajilon litigation.

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, the tenant, and take additional space in a nearby facility leased by another subsidiary of TSI, LLC. Following a determination of an initial award, which TSI, LLC and the tenant have paid in full, the landlord appealed the trial court’s award of damages, and on August 29, 2011, an additional award (amounting to approximately $900) (the “Additional Award”), was entered against the tenant, which has recorded a liability. 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. As a result, the developer reimbursed TSI, LLC and the tenant the amount of the initial award in installments over time and also agreed to be responsible for the payment of the Additional Award, and the tenant has recorded a receivable related to the indemnification for the Additional Award. The developer and the landlord are currently litigating the payment of the Additional Award and 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. TSI, LLC does not believe it is probable that TSI, LLC will be required to pay for any amount of the Additional Award.

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 document discovery was 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. The Company establishes accruals for loss contingencies when it has determined that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. Any such accruals are adjusted thereafter as appropriate to reflect changes in circumstances. As of December 31, 2014, the company has not concluded that an accrual for any such matters is required.