Statute Of Limitations Trespass | NYC Trespass, Stalking, and Surveillance Device Case Resolved With Probation

The client admitted that:

• He entered the apartment multiple times after the breakup
• He returned repeatedly to retrieve the recording device
• His presence near the building caused the complainant emotional distress

This led prosecutors to pursue:

• Criminal Trespass (NYPL §140.15)
• Stalking (NYPL §120.45–60)
• Unlawful Eavesdropping (NYPL §250.05)

These allegations are treated with significant seriousness in New York. Trespass requires proof of unlawful entry, while eavesdropping requires intentional recording of private conversations without consent.

The attorney explained:

• Potential misdemeanor and felony penalties
• The applicable Statute Of Limitations Trespass
• How early mitigation could influence the court’s approach
•  

This allowed the client to understand both the risks and the strategic path forward.

Criminal Trespass:
Knowingly entering/remaining unlawfully in a dwelling.
Class A misdemeanor; up to 1 year jail.

Stalking:
Repeated unwanted monitoring or presence causing fear or distress.
Penalties vary by degree.

Unlawful Eavesdropping:
Using a device to intentionally overhear or record private conversations.
Class E felony.

The attorney clarified how each allegation fits within New York law and how remorse, rehabilitation, and settlement efforts could influence outcomes even in cases involving surveillance.

New York treats recording-device cases harshly because they intrude on highly protected privacy interests.

However, the defense emphasized that:

• The client’s actions stemmed from emotional distress
• There was no intent to exploit or distribute recordings

This distinction helped contextualize the misconduct during negotiations.

The client:

• Immediately admitted wrongdoing
• Completed multiple written apology letters
• Began counseling with a licensed professional

These steps demonstrated sincerity and allowed the attorney to argue that the behavior was situational, not habitual.

The defense submitted documentation showing:

• No prior criminal history
• Active participation in therapy
• Engagement in communication-skills training

This helped persuade prosecutors that the risk of recurrence was low.

The attorney facilitated discussions resulting in:

• A written settlement agreement
• A non-prosecution request from the complainant
• Financial compensation for emotional distress

This cooperative resolution was instrumental in reducing the overall penalty under the Statute Of Limitations Trespass framework.

Trespass, stalking, and surveillance-device cases rarely receive leniency without strong advocacy.

The defense demonstrated that:

• The conduct stemmed from emotional instability, not malicious intent
• The complainant received closure and compensation
• The client showed measurable rehabilitation

This comprehensive mitigation narrative persuaded the court to impose a probationary sentence.

If you are under investigation for trespass, stalking, or privacy-related criminal allegations, an attorney familiar with the Statute Of Limitations Trespass can provide early, targeted, and effective legal intervention.

SJKP offers:

• Immediate case assessment
• Early negotiation with prosecutors
• Mitigation strategy development
• Defense planning for privacy and surveillance-device cases

For confidential guidance, contact SJKP to schedule a consultation today.