Unlawful Entry Charge Defense Case Study | Non Prosecution Secured in New York

The client had consumed alcohol with a friend in a nearby bar and, while attempting to sober up, walked along a residential street. 

He noticed that the door of a private tutoring center appeared unlocked and ajar. Believing no one was inside and intending only to rest briefly, he stepped inside and unintentionally fell asleep.

A staff member later observed him on surveillance footage and contacted the police. 

The client was subsequently investigated for an unlawful entry charge, despite the absence of malicious intent, property damage, or disruptive conduct.

Under New York Penal Law Article 140, unlawful entry generally requires knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in a building without license or privilege.

Because intent, awareness, and the presence of aggravating factors are decisive, the legal team centered its approach on demonstrating lack of criminal purpose and minimal impact on the property.

Although the case was investigated as a potential criminal trespass matter, New York Penal Law generally imposes penalties ranging from violations to misdemeanors for unlawful entry scenarios.

Because the facility was not a dwelling, and no aggravating security features were breached, the potential charge aligned with lower level criminal trespass provisions rather than felony burglary offenses.

The absence of forced entry, theft, or hostile behavior provided compelling grounds to argue that the client lacked the intent necessary for criminal liability. 

As such, the defense emphasized that the client’s conduct was situational, unplanned, and caused no harm.

Counsel contacted the property owner to clarify the circumstances and address concerns directly.

Once the client provided compensation for minor inconveniences and apologized, the owner expressed that they did not wish to pursue criminal charges.

This agreement became a central factor in the prosecution’s decision to decline further action.

The defense highlighted that the premises were empty, no property was damaged, and the client did not attempt to conceal his identity or commit any further act.

This evidence strengthened the argument that the event was an intoxication related lapse rather than an intentional unlawful entry.

The client acknowledged his mistake and began reducing alcohol consumption.

Evidence of corrective behavior, absence of prior criminal history, and voluntary participation in counseling helped demonstrate a low risk of reoffending.

This case illustrates the importance of involving counsel immediately when facing an unlawful entry charge.

Prompt communication with property owners, careful factual reconstruction, and strategic presentation of mitigating factors can prevent unnecessary escalation into criminal proceedings.