Empire State Building Climbers Due Back in Court
The couple charged after scaling the Empire State Building are scheduled to appear in court, but the case remains undecided.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 24, 2026, 6:55 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 24, 2026, 6:55 a.m. ETFirst report
Empire State Building Climbers Face Court Hearing
The couple who climbed to the top of the Empire State Building and got engaged are due back in court Monday, facing criminal charges stemming from the stunt. The case is still undecided, as the couple has been charged but not yet tried.
Prosecutors allege Ivan Kuznetsov, 32, and Angelina Nikolau, 33, gained access to restricted areas and climbed more than 1,300 feet above Manhattan. Authorities say a lock on a 104th-floor security door was broken, allowing access to the building's broadcasting antenna. Investigators also believe the couple entered the building the night before and remained inside overnight before carrying out the climb.
The case is a criminal matter in district court, and the couple has been charged. The event is still developing.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 124 Aug 2026, 11:00current
First published.
- Version 124 Aug 2026, 10:55current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.