Appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard J. Sullivan, Judge), dismissing an amended complaint brought by Charles Oakley against MSG Networks, Inc., The Madison Square Garden Company, and MSG Sports & Entertainment, LLC and James Dolan. Reversed and remanded as to causes of action for assault and battery; affirmed as to all other causes of action in a summary order filed this date. JON NEWMAN, C.J. This appeal concerns the sufficiency of allegations of unreasonable force applied by security personnel endeavoring to remove a spectator from a sports arena. Plaintiff-Appellant Charles Oakley appeals from the February 20, 2020, judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard J. Sullivan, Judge1). The judgment dismissed an amended complaint against Defendants-Appellees MSG Networks, Inc., The Madison Square Garden Company, and MSG Sports & Entertainment, LLC (collectively “the MSG Defendants”) and James Dolan. We conclude that the allegations of unreasonable force sufficed to withstand a motion to dismiss the assault and battery causes of action in the Plaintiff’s amended complaint. We therefore reverse in part and remand. The appeal also presents other issues, which we resolve favorably to the Defendants-Appellees in a summary order filed this date. Background Oakley is a former professional basketball player who had a successful career with the New York Knicks basketball team from 1988 to 1998. Dolan is the Executive Chairman of the MSG Defendants, which own and operate Madison Square Garden (“the Garden”) and the Knicks. The Plaintiff filed a complaint in September 2017 and an amended complaint in February 2018, alleging state law claims for assault and battery against the MSG Defendants, arising out of an incident occurring at the Garden on February 8, 2017 (“the Incident”). The amended complaint also alleges other state law claims and a federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., against all Defendants, which the summary order considers.2 This opinion considers the assault and battery claims; the summary order filed this date considers all the other claims. Plaintiff’s allegations. Oakley alleged the following facts concerning the assault and battery claims. Dolan “constantly disrespected” Oakley and had “security harass him” when he attended games at the Garden. Am. Compt. 2. On February 8, 2017, Oakley appeared at the Garden to watch a Knicks game. Within minutes of the moment when Oakley took his seat, Dolan directed security “to forcibly remove” Oakley, id. 3, and he “was approached by three large men identifying themselves as being members of [MSG's] security team who ordered him to leave the arena without explanation,” id. 34. When Oakley asked why was being forced to leave, one of the security guards “demand[ed] loudly, ‘Why are you sitting so close to Mr. Dolan?’” Id. 35. Oakley “attempted to defuse the situation by patiently explaining to the security personnel that he had done nothing wrong and simply wanted to watch the game.” Id. 37. Oakley “raised his arms during this encounter, in a defensive posture that clearly conveyed that he had no intention of engaging in any violent behavior.” Id. 38. Oakley “attempted to demonstrate that he was capable of watching the game without creating an incident, by turning around and peaceably returning to his seat.” Id. 40. He “did not, however, refuse to leave the Garden at the time and merely sought an explanation for why he was being treated differently than every other fan who had attended the Knicks game that night.” Id. 41. “As he did so, two of the security guards grabbed Mr. Oakley and pushed him to the ground.” Id. 42. “In forcibly shoving Mr. Oakley to the ground within seconds of first approaching him, and without any physical threat or provocation from Mr. Oakley, the security guards clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonable behavior and instigated a physical altercation where there otherwise was no need for such violent conduct.” Id. 43. “When Mr. Oakley got back to his feet,” id. 44, “the security guards further escalated the confrontation by physically grabbing Mr. Oakley to forcibly compel him to leave,” id. 45. “Fearing for his safety as he was surrounded by several large security guards, and having already been roughly shoved to the ground once, Mr. Oakley pushed their hands away in self-defense.” Id. 46. “Within seconds, Mr. Oakley was forcibly turned around so his back faced security, grabbed by six officers and thrown to the ground.” Id. 47. “The security guards further refused Mr. Oakley’s repeated requests that he be allowed to stand up, instead crowding around him and impeding his ability to get to his feet.” Id. 48. “Mr. Oakley was then put into restraints and the security guards roughly threw him out of the Garden.” 49. “Defendants greatly exceeded the amount of force that was necessary in the situation, especially since Mr. Oakley had explained repeatedly that he had not done anything wrong and not instigated the violent conduct.” Id. 50. Oakley “was ultimately taken outside of the arena, arrested and charged with assault.” Id. 51. Oakley made the following allegations in support of a cause of action for assault. The MSG Defendants “intentionally placed Plaintiff in imminent fear of harmful and/or offensive conduct when, inter alia, they physically and forcibly removed Plaintiff from the Garden….” Id. 123. “As a direct and proximate result of [the MSG Defendants'] tortious conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer harm….” Id. 125. He made the following allegations in support of a cause of action for battery. The MSG Defendants “intentionally and wrongfully physically contacted Plaintiff without his consent when, inter alia, they physically and forcibly removed Plaintiff from the Garden….” Id. 127. “As a direct and proximate result of [the MSG Defendants'] tortious conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer harm….” Id. 128. Plaintiff’s pleading of both the assault and the battery causes of action incorporated his factual allegations. Dismissal of the amended complaint. On February 19, 2020, the District Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. See Oakley v. Dolan, No. 17-cv-6903 (RJS), 2020 WL 818920 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2020). The District Court recognized that, to defeat a motion to dismiss a complaint, a plaintiff must allege “‘enough facts to state a claim [for] relief that is plausible on its face,’” id. at *3 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)), and that “a court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff,” id. at *4 (citing ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Schaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007)).] his ability to’ stand Turning to the assault and battery claims, the Court first observed that “‘a property owner has the right to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser from its premises,’” id. at *12 (quoting Mitchell v. New York University, No. 150622/2013, 2014 WL 123255, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 8, 2014), and then acknowledged that “the use of unnecessary force or evidence of intent to injure…removes the privilege,” id. The Court further explained that “the MSG Defendants had the right to expel Oakley from the Garden and that his refusal to leave justified their use of reasonable force to remove him — a licensee who became a trespasser by refusing to leave their property after being directed to do so.” Id. at *13. The Court cited Impastato v. Hellman Enterprises, Inc., 147 A.D. 788, 789, 537 N.Y.S.2d 659 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989), for the proposition that “[a]n admission ticket to a place of public amusement is merely a license which is revocable, without cause, at the will of the proprietor.” Oakley, 2020 WL 818920, at *13 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court understood Oakley’s claim to be that “the guards’ use of force was unreasonable because he did ‘nothing wrong and simply wanted to watch the game in peace.’” Id. (quoting Am. Compt. 37). Then, considering whether the force used was unreasonable, the Court stated that “the mere allegation that the guards subsequently ‘grabbed [him] and pushed him to the ground [citing Am. Compt. 42]‘ is not enough to demonstrate unreasonable force, see, e.g., Kalfus v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hospital, 476 F. App’x 877, 880-81 (2d Cir. 2012) (explaining that police officers’ pushing trespasser onto the ground while arresting him to remove him from the premises after he refused to leave was reasonable force).” Oakley, 2020 WL 818920, at *13. The Court continued, “Nowhere does Oakley allege that the guards intended to injure him, and his description of the events as they unfolded does not support an inference of excessive or unreasonable force.” Id. The Court understood Oakley to have alleged that “It was only after Oakley slapped the guards’ hands away ‘in self-defense’ that three more security guards arrived on the scene and forced him to the ground and ‘imped[ed] his ability to’ stand up.”4 Id. (quoting Am. Compt.
