💛 A quick favor, if you've got a second.
We're really happy that you chose to read one of our stories and sincerely hope you'll stick around to read more. We took our paywall down — for now — but that won't last forever, and when the gate goes back up, we'd love for you to already be on the inside.
It's free. So please enter your email here and don't forget to like and follow us on all of your favorite Social Media platforms!
President Donald Trump’s legal representatives submitted arguments to the New York Court of Appeals on Wednesday requesting the dismissal of his liability verdict in a $464 million civil fraud case stemming from alleged property valuation misconduct. The filing contends the case contains fundamental legal deficiencies that should have prevented it from advancing to trial in the first place. According to the submission, “This case should have never been brought, and the judgment cannot stand.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James initiated the lawsuit in 2022, alleging 200 instances of fraud related to Trump’s New York City real estate dealings. The case centered on accusations that Trump systematically inflated property values to obtain advantageous loan terms and insurance rates in violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12). A jury found Trump liable in 2023, resulting in a $355 million damages award plus interest and imposing a two-year ban on serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation.
Trump’s appeal emphasizes five core contentions, including that James lacked prosecutorial authority to pursue the case given the involvement of private commercial transactions rather than public harm. The filing argues Trump’s valuations represented subjective estimates that independent lenders separately evaluated, rather than fraudulent statements. It notes that financial institutions involved “have never claimed to be injured, were eager to do business with President Trump and his family, and made over $100 million from these transactions.”
The defense challenge also characterizes the monetary penalty as excessive and unconstitutional while questioning the legal foundation for treating property valuation differences as inherent fraud. Additionally, the brief argues James’s publicly stated intent to investigate Trump and his business dealings demonstrates political motivation sufficient to bar the case’s consideration. An intermediate appellate court previously vacated the monetary award, though Trump’s attorneys now seek elimination of the underlying liability finding and remaining restrictions.
More Stories
Federal voting arrest in New Jersey adds new pressure point in Sherrill-Trump standoff
Colombia backs Trump security push while limiting U.S. role in anti-gang operations
Former NFL cheerleader and ex-aide face off in close Rhode Island GOP primary