Big Law NYC Stalking Allegation Dismissed Case

The client had previously maintained a personal relationship with the complainant, which later ended unilaterally.

After the relationship concluded, the client sent several emotionally driven messages expressing apology and lingering feelings.

Although the messages did not contain threats or coercive language, the complainant later asserted that the communications were unwanted and filed a criminal complaint.

At the time the investigation began, the client had already ceased all contact and had no further interaction with the complainant.

Defense counsel carefully reviewed the content, frequency, and timing of the messages at issue.

The analysis focused on whether the communications could reasonably be characterized as repetitive conduct causing fear, intimidation, or substantial emotional distress.

Particular attention was paid to the absence of threats, surveillance behavior, physical proximity, or continued contact after an explicit warning.

This evaluation formed the foundation for arguing that the conduct fell outside the scope of prosecutable stalking behavior.

A central issue was whether the client clearly understood that the complainant no longer wished to receive messages at the time they were sent.

Defense submissions highlighted that the messages reflected emotional closure rather than persistence or harassment.

There was no evidence of defiance after a clear request to stop, and the client voluntarily discontinued all contact without external intervention.

This supported the position that there was no criminal intent or conscious disregard of boundaries.

Beyond legal arguments, counsel emphasized the client’s proactive steps following the incident.

The client voluntarily engaged in counseling and education to ensure appropriate boundaries in future communications.

Additionally, the client adjusted daily routines to avoid any possibility of incidental contact with the complainant.

These actions were presented as concrete evidence that there was no ongoing risk or likelihood of recurrence.

The non prosecution outcome allowed the client to resume professional and personal life without restrictions or stigma.

This matter illustrates how early intervention by a big law NYC defense team can prevent escalation and reframe allegations within their proper factual context.

By focusing on intent, proportionality, and corrective conduct, counsel successfully guided the matter to a prompt and favorable resolution.