CONTRACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT THE MEMBER WAS ONLY “PURCHASING A PROGRAM”
In March of 2020, J.S. paid $1800 for personal training services at 24 Hour Fitness gym. But days later, the establishment closed due to COVID-19’s then-applicable stay-in-place directives.
When the restrictions were lifted, and JS went back to the gym, he was informed that his personal trainer no longer worked with the company. And when J.S. insisted on a refund, that request was denied.
After a small claims dispute was filed with the Queens County Civil Court, the judge ended up dismissing the case (even though the gym didn’t appear), because J.S. “failed to provide documentation” or to “prove damages.”
Because his contract with the gym unequivocally provided that “‘the member is purchasing a program and not the services of an individual trainer,” and noted that, the “assigned trainer may not be available to conduct any one or all sessions, in which case another trainer will be assigned,” and that the “member is not entitled to a refund if the originally assigned trainer is not available,” the Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the outcome; noting that J.S. had “failed to make out a prima facie case.”
Was that an exercise in futility?
# # #
DECISION