Stalking Defense Lawyer in New York

Stalking Usually Turns on a Pattern, Not One Isolated Act

A stalking allegation can grow out of text messages, phone calls, visits, social media activity, location tracking, workplace contact, or conduct that two people describe very differently.

New York stalking law generally focuses on repeated conduct or a course of conduct rather than one isolated event, although the exact requirements change depending on the degree and subdivision charged. New York courts have described a course of conduct as a series of acts over time that demonstrates continuity of purpose.

That makes context important.

At Barket Epstein Kearon Aldea & LoTurco, LLP, our criminal defense team includes former prosecutors, former public defenders, and a former Nassau County Court judge. Our attorneys bring more than 200 years of combined experience to a team-based approach in serious criminal matters.

Four Degrees, but Several Different Legal Theories

New York recognizes four degrees of stalking under Penal Law Article 120.

The classification moves from misdemeanor to felony, but the degrees are not simply the same crime with progressively harsher penalties. Each contains particular statutory pathways.

Stalking in the Fourth Degree

Stalking in the Fourth Degree under Penal Law §120.45 is a Class B misdemeanor.

The statute addresses intentional conduct directed at a specific person, for no legitimate purpose, when the accused knows or reasonably should know that the conduct satisfies one of several harm or fear standards.

One subdivision concerns conduct likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to a person's physical health, safety, or property.

Another concerns following, calling, or initiating contact that causes material harm to mental or emotional health after the person has clearly been told to stop.

A third addresses certain repeated contact at a person's place of employment or business after a clear instruction to stop, where the conduct is likely to create reasonable fear that the person's employment, business, or career is threatened.

The prosecution does not have to prove in every Fourth Degree case that the accused specifically intended to frighten the complainant. New York courts have explained that the intent element focuses on engaging in the course of conduct; the statute separately considers what the accused knew or reasonably should have known about its likely effect.

Stalking in the Third Degree

Stalking in the Third Degree under §120.50 is a Class A misdemeanor.

It can arise through several different routes, including Fourth Degree stalking against three or more people in separate transactions, certain qualifying prior convictions, or an intentional course of conduct undertaken with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm that is likely to cause reasonable fear of physical injury, a sex offense, kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, or death.

A prior Fourth Degree stalking conviction within the statutory period can also affect the degree charged.

That is why a defense should identify the exact subdivision rather than treating every Third Degree case as an aggravated version of the same allegation.

Stalking in the Second Degree

Stalking in the Second Degree is a Class E felony.

Section 120.55 contains multiple pathways. They include specified weapon-related conduct committed during a particular form of Third Degree stalking, certain qualifying prior offenses, a qualifying prior stalking conviction, conduct involving an accused age 21 or older and a person under 14, and a statutory provision involving Third Degree stalking against 10 or more people in separate transactions.

The details matter. A generic statement that a weapon or prior conviction “makes stalking a felony” is not enough to establish the actual elements of Second Degree stalking.

Stalking in the First Degree

Stalking in the First Degree is a Class D felony.

Under §120.60, the accused must first commit the specified form of Third Degree stalking or Stalking in the Second Degree and, during and in furtherance of that conduct, intentionally or recklessly cause physical injury or commit one of the Article 130 offenses identified by the statute.

The prosecution therefore has to establish both the underlying stalking theory and the additional conduct required for First Degree.

Digital Contact and GPS Evidence Need Context

A stalking case does not require someone to physically follow another person down a street.

Texts, calls, emails, social media messages, location information, and other electronic records can become part of the alleged course of conduct.

New York law also expressly addresses GPS and similar tracking in a specific context. For the §120.45(2) form of Fourth Degree stalking, “following” includes unauthorized tracking of someone's movements or location through GPS or another device. The remaining requirements of that subdivision still have to be established.

The same is true of repeated messages.

Continuing to text or contact someone after being told to stop can be important evidence, but the communication should be evaluated in context. The number of communications, timing, content, prior relationship, responses from both sides, and the particular subdivision charged can all matter.

Online conduct does not become a separate offense merely because it occurred through a phone or social-media platform.

An Order of Protection Can Change the Rules Immediately

A criminal court may issue a Temporary Order of Protection while a stalking case is pending.

Depending on its terms, the order can prohibit contact, require the accused to stay away from particular places, or impose other restrictions. The protected person cannot authorize the accused to disregard a court order; only the court can modify or terminate it.

That makes the order itself important evidence.

If you are subject to an order of protection, the safest approach is to read its exact terms carefully and avoid assuming that a text, invitation, or contact initiated by the protected person changes the order.

An alleged violation can create separate criminal contempt exposure. Which contempt offense may apply depends on the conduct, knowledge of the order, prior history, and specific provision allegedly violated.

A final order of protection can remain in effect for years after disposition. The permitted duration depends on the conviction, sentence, type of proceeding, and law in effect at the time. We do not reduce that analysis to one universal number because New York's statutory duration rules can differ by case and are subject to legislative change.

When Criminal Court and Family Court Can Overlap

Some stalking allegations can proceed in both Criminal Court and Family Court, but that does not apply to every relationship.

Family Court Act §812 gives Family Court and Criminal Court concurrent jurisdiction over stalking offenses when the parties have the qualifying family or household relationship required by the statute, such as spouses, former spouses, parent and child, or other qualifying members of the same family or household.

In those cases, a Family Court petition and a criminal prosecution can create separate proceedings with different standards and potential orders of protection.

Our domestic violence defense practice addresses the additional issues that can arise when criminal accusations involve an intimate, family, or household relationship.

What We Examine in the Communication Record

Stalking cases are often built from fragments: selected messages, screenshots, call logs, photographs, witness accounts, or one person's description of a longer relationship.

Our job is to reconstruct the actual timeline.

That can include examining:

• How many alleged contacts occurred and over what period
• Who initiated communications
• Whether a clear instruction to stop was given when the charged subdivision requires one
• Whether later communications changed the context
• Whether there was a legitimate purpose for particular contact where that element applies
• Whether the prosecution can establish the statutory fear or harm requirement
• Whether an alleged GPS or digital record can be reliably attributed to the accused
• Whether the prosecution is relying on an incomplete selection of messages
• Whether a prior conviction actually qualifies as the predicate offense required by the charged degree

Not every defense theory applies to every stalking charge.

For example, lack of intent to harass, annoy, or alarm can be directly relevant to the §120.50(3) form of Third Degree stalking. Fourth Degree uses a different mental-state framework.

BEKAL Has Recently Defended a Stalking Case

Our stalking experience is not theoretical.

BEKAL's published success stories include a January 2026 Suffolk County matter in which John H. LoTurco obtained the complete dismissal of Harassment in the Second Degree and Stalking charges.

The allegations arose from a contentious relationship involving extensive communications between the parties. After reviewing the evidence and presenting additional context to prosecutors, the case was dismissed and the Order of Protection against the client was vacated.

That prior result does not predict what will happen in another case. It does illustrate why reviewing the complete communication history can matter when an accusation is built from disputed interactions between people with an ongoing history.