Several days after the dramatic climb on top of the Empire State Building, the story no longer looks like just a dangerous romantic stunt. It now looks like a serious criminal case in New York City.

According to AP, ABC News, and ABC7 New York, the climbers were Angela / Angelina Nikolau and Ivan Kuznetsov, also known as Ivan Beerkus — Russian rooftop climbers known for extreme high-rise stunts and for the Netflix documentary Skywalkers: A Love Story. On July 1, 2026, they climbed to the upper antenna area of the Empire State Building, unfurled a banner about the “power of love,” and staged what appeared to be a marriage proposal high above Manhattan.

After the stunt, they were detained by the NYPD and taken to court. Reports say they were charged with multiple offenses, including reckless endangerment, burglary, criminal mischief, and other counts. They were later released under supervised release until their next court date, reported as August 24, 2026.

That does not mean the case is over.

One of the most important points in this story is often misunderstood. In New York, the owner of the building does not “open” a criminal case in the way people may understand it in other legal systems. A criminal case is brought by prosecutors on behalf of the People of the State of New York. The Empire State Building may be a property owner, a victim, a witness, or a source of security records and damage reports — but the criminal case itself is not “Empire State Building vs. the climbers.” It is the State of New York against the defendants.

Official NYPD information explains that after an arrest, the police provide case information to the District Attorney’s Office, and the District Attorney decides whether to file charges. The New York State court system also explains that in a criminal case, the prosecutor represents the People of the State of New York, while the victim is not a formal party to the case.

So even if the owners of the Empire State Building do not publicly announce that they want to “press charges,” that does not automatically stop the criminal process. The decision belongs to the District Attorney.

Why could this become a criminal matter at all?

New York City has a specific rule against climbing buildings and structures. NYC Administrative Code § 10-167 prohibits climbing, attempting to climb, jumping from, or suspending oneself from the exterior of a building or other structure higher than 50 feet without permission from the owner, except in lawful construction, maintenance, or repair work. A violation can be treated as a class A misdemeanor.

But the more serious legal danger comes from New York State Penal Law.

Burglary in the third degree does not always mean “stealing something” in the everyday sense. Under New York Penal Law § 140.20, a person can be guilty of third-degree burglary if they knowingly enter or remain unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime there. That is a class D felony.

That is why prosecutors could argue that the issue was not merely “two people climbed too high.” The legal theory may be that they unlawfully entered or remained in a restricted technical area of the building in order to commit another offense — such as unlawful climbing, trespass, criminal mischief, or tampering.

Reckless endangerment in the first degree is another serious charge. Under Penal Law § 120.25, it involves conduct that creates a grave risk of death to another person under circumstances showing a depraved indifference to human life. In this case, prosecutors could argue that the risk was not only to the climbers themselves, but also to police officers, emergency responders, building workers, technicians, and people below.

ABC News reported, citing a criminal complaint, that a lock on a security door leading to the 104th floor was allegedly broken, and that the area provided access to the broadcast antenna. The complaint reportedly also mentioned that the antenna emits high-frequency radio signals and that NYPD Emergency Service Unit officers had to wait until the antenna was turned off before approaching the climbers.

If prosecutors can prove damage to a lock, unlawful access, possession of tools, intent, and risk to others, the case becomes much more serious than a social-media stunt. If the defense can weaken those points — for example, by challenging proof of damage, intent, or actual risk to other people — some charges could be reduced or dismissed.

What could realistically happen next?

The softest likely outcome would be a reduction of charges to misdemeanors, followed by a fine, restitution for damage, community service, a conditional discharge, or a ban from restricted areas of the building. That kind of outcome becomes more likely if nobody was injured, the damage was limited, and prosecutors decide that felony charges are too heavy for the facts.

A middle-ground outcome would be a plea deal. The defendants might plead guilty to one or more reduced charges and receive supervised conditions, restitution, and a criminal record. For international rooftop climbers, that could still be a major consequence: future travel, visas, public reputation, and commercial content opportunities could all be affected.

The harshest scenario would be the continuation of felony charges. Burglary in the third degree is a class D felony, and under New York Penal Law § 70.00, a class D felony can carry a maximum sentence of up to seven years in prison. That is the statutory maximum, not a prediction of what sentence they would receive. But legally, the risk exists if felony charges survive.

The key issue now is not whether the video looked romantic, cinematic, or reckless. The key legal question is whether prosecutors can prove the elements of the alleged crimes: unlawful access, possible damage, intent, tools, and a real risk to other people.

As of now, there is no public proof that the owners of the Empire State Building have “forgiven” the pair or refused to cooperate with the case. But even if the building owner did not want to bring a civil lawsuit, that would not automatically end a criminal prosecution. In New York, the criminal case belongs to the People of the State of New York — and the next serious chapter will be written in court, not on Instagram.