Who: Angela (Angelina) Nikolau, 33, and Ivan Kuznetsov (aka Beerkus), 32, two Moscow-born climbers living in East Orange; When/Where: after a Wednesday ascent of the Empire State Building’s 1,454-foot spire in New York; What/Result: arraigned Thursday on multiple charges and released under supervised conditions until their next court date on Aug. 24. The pair, who unfurled a banner and drew citywide attention when they reached the tower’s broadcasting antenna more than 1,300 feet above ground, did not enter pleas at the brief hearing.
Key takeaways
- The climbers were arraigned Thursday and released under supervised conditions; their next court date is Aug. 24.
- Charges include reckless endangerment, burglary, criminal mischief and additional counts tied to the unauthorized climb.
- A broken lock on a 104th-floor security door and a hatch on the 102nd floor figure in the criminal complaint as access points.
- The spire reached during the stunt rises to about 1,454 feet; the broadcasting antenna accessed sits more than 1,300 feet above street level.
- NYPD Emergency Service Unit personnel scaled the spire to extract the pair; police released harrowing body-camera footage of the rescue.
- The couple are documented daredevils and were featured in the 2024 documentary “Skywalkers: A Love Story,” now on Netflix.
- The Empire State Building said there was no time when tenants, guests or observation-deck visitors were at risk, a point contested by law enforcement.
Background
The Empire State Building, one of New York’s most visited landmarks, has long been an object of unauthorized ascents by thrill-seekers. Its observation decks and broadcast facilities sit at extreme heights that require strict security protocols; past incidents have prompted periodic reviews of access control and response procedures. Publicity stunts and sanctioned climbs alike draw intense scrutiny because of the potential for civil liability and public-safety risk in a dense urban environment.
Nikolau and Kuznetsov are known internationally for scaling tall structures without permission; their acts blend performance, photography and high-risk climbing. Their 2024 profile in a Netflix documentary contributed to their public recognition. The couple’s reported goal in this instance was an engagement moment—captured atop the spire and accompanied by a banner reading, “When the power of love beats the love of power the world knows peace.” City officials and building operators must now weigh security failures, possible criminal intent and the public attention the stunt generated.
Main event
According to investigators, security footage first caught the two on a building hatch on the 102nd floor at about 5 a.m. on Wednesday; the criminal complaint also states a lock on a 104th-floor security door had been broken, allowing access to antenna structures more than 1,300 feet high. Authorities say tools were used to loosen brackets and that the pair may have entered the building the night before and remained hidden overnight.
After the couple reached the antenna, they unfurled their banner and shared the moment publicly when they descended; police later said the NYPD Emergency Service Unit climbed the spire to bring them down. Both were held in separate cells overnight and appeared in court the next morning wearing the same black clothing seen in video of the ascent. They were formally charged but did not enter pleas during the brief arraignment.
The couple’s lawyer, Jason Krinsky, argued that prosecutors overcharged the case and highlighted a statement from Empire State Building staff that no tenants or observation-deck guests were endangered. Law enforcement disagreed about the risk assessment, releasing body-camera footage they described as “harrowing” to show the difficulty and danger of the response. Cameras captured the newly engaged pair exchanging a kiss as they left the courthouse and entered the Chambers Street subway station.
Analysis & implications
The incident raises immediate legal questions about how trespass and dangerous conduct statutes apply to publicity stunts that occur at extreme heights. Reckless endangerment and burglary charges suggest prosecutors view the climb as both a threat to public safety and an act of unauthorized entry. If convicted, the pair could face penalties designed to deter similar high-profile stunts that impose rescue risks on first responders.
Operationally, the episode spotlights potential vulnerabilities in the building’s perimeter and internal security controls, from overnight access detection to the integrity of locks and hatches on upper floors. Even when building management assesses that visitors and tenants were not at risk, the necessity of mobilizing elite NYPD units imposes fiscal and human costs and invites a review of preventive measures and surveillance protocols.
There are reputational consequences as well: landmark operators must balance being open and visitor-friendly against the need to prevent dangerous intrusions. For the climbing community and social-media influencers, the case could chill sensational stunts and prompt platforms to reassess content that glamorizes illegal ascents. Internationally recognized participants—documented in films or profiles—face intensified scrutiny that can affect visa, travel and insurance considerations for future climbs.
Comparison & data
| Event | Year | Permission | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nikolau & Kuznetsov climb (Empire State) | 2026 | Unauthorized | Arrested; charged; supervised release |
| Jared Leto ascent to base of antenna | 2023 | Permitted (promotional) | Publicized, no arrest |
| Other unauthorized antenna climbs (historical) | Various | Unauthorized | Typically removal/arrest; occasional policy reviews |
The spire height at issue is approximately 1,454 feet; the broadcasting antenna structures the pair accessed sit above 1,300 feet. The contrast in outcomes—authorized promotional access versus clandestine ascents—illustrates how permissions and operator coordination change both legal exposure and safety oversight. Building operators, promoters and law enforcement must coordinate tightly for sanctioned activities to avoid the recurrence of dangerous, unsanctioned climbs.
Reactions & quotes
Officials and observers offered sharply divergent framings of the event, from concern about public safety to characterization of the act as a romantic performance.
“Even the Empire State Building’s own people said that there was no risk or danger to any of the tenants, to any of the guests on the observation deck, or anyone in the building.”
Jason Krinsky, Defense attorney (statement in court)
Krinsky used the building’s assessment to argue the charges were excessive and to frame the act as a message of love rather than a public-safety hazard.
“As for what I would call the harrowing body camera video that we released last night…it really can take your breath away.”
Jessica Tisch, NYPD Commissioner
Commissioner Tisch emphasized the operational risk faced by officers who climbed to retrieve the pair and framed the footage as evidence of the danger inherent in such stunts.
“There was what we would call pre-observational surveillance. Someone cased the joint if you will.”
Greg Sanfilippo, VP, Doyle Security Services
Security professionals cited the apparent planning behind the ascent as an aggravating factor and one reason for thorough investigation.
Unconfirmed
- That the couple were already legally married prior to the event, as claimed by Nikolau’s father; this remains unverified by public records or court filings.
- Whether the climbers definitively entered the building the night before; investigators say they believe so, but the timing is drawn from internal footage and remains under investigation.
- The extent and specifics of tools used to loosen brackets and gain access to the stairwell—described in the complaint but not yet independently catalogued in public filings.
- Allegations of long-term surveillance of the building’s security routines by the pair; security professionals have said there appears to have been pre-observational activity, but formal proof has not been published.
Bottom line
The episode is both a human-interest spectacle and a stress test of urban security and legal boundaries. Authorities have treated the climb as a criminal matter because of alleged forcible entry, use of tools and the risk it posed to first responders; the climbers’ attorney framed it as a performance driven by an engagement. The contrast between those positions will shape prosecutorial decisions and any eventual plea negotiations or trials.
For operators of major landmarks and city officials, the incident underscores the need to harden access controls and refine rapid-response plans for extreme-height incursions. For the public and the climbing community, it will likely shift the calculus on high-visibility stunts: elevated media attention can amplify both the personal brand gains and the legal consequences. The next significant public milestone in this case is the Aug. 24 court date, where additional filings or plea decisions may clarify intent and penalty exposure.