Ahead of closing arguments scheduled for this week, former President Donald Trump summarized his thoughts on the lawsuit commenced by the New York Attorney General (AG) against him, his sons and the Trump Organization relating to the submission of allegedly false financial statements to various lenders and insurers:

Let’s fact check some of his statements.
1. “My Financial Statements Are Great”
FALSE. Judge Engoron concluded on summary judgment that the defendants knowingly overstated the value of their assets to induce lending and obtain other economic benefits. Significantly, Trump doubled the square footage of his New York City apartment, notwithstanding his knowledge of what should be included in the square footage of a residential unit.
A larger point of contention is the valuation of Mar-a-Lago, which Trump valued as high as $739 million. Judge Engoron relied heavily on the tax assessor’s valuation and a deed restriction prohibiting its use as a private home that limits its use to a social club in valuing Mar-a-Lago. Both Trump and many local realtors note that the assessor’s value is not equivalent to fair market value (i.e., what someone would pay in an arms length transaction after appropriate marketing) and that the property is unique.
2. Did AG James says “I will get Trump” when she campaigned?
TRUE. During her campaign for election as AG, James vowed to pursue Trump, whom she described as an “illegitimate president” and “embarassament”.
3. “They Never Used the ‘N.Y. Statute’ for This Before.”
FALSE. In a prior post on the Trump civil trial, I explained the “case or controversy” raised by the AG’s lawsuit and the basis for her authority. In particular, I stated,
This is not the first time that the AG has exercised its authority under Executive Law Section 63(12) or that Trump has been a target under that authority. Former AG Eric Schneiderman sued Trump University under the statute. That lawsuit resulted in a $25 million settlement in 2018.
4. “I Was Not Allowed A Jury”
PARTIALLY TRUE. One the claims was decided of the Attorney General on summary judgment, with the rest proceeding to trial without a jury.
Trump and his co-defendants failed to demand a trial by jury. In certifying the case ready for trial, the AG filed a form in June 2023 electing for a trial without a jury. Under N.Y. CPLR 4102, most parties can demand a trial by jury within 15 days of such a notification. Defendants did not file a form demanding a jury trial. This was a conscious decision by Trump’s legal team, which based their analysis that a jury trial was not available on one precedent where the AG sued under the same law. However, that case may have been distinguishable in that only an equitable relief may have been sought in the other case. In contrast, both money damages and equitable relief are being sought by the AG in the current case. (See “When are you entitled to a jury trial?”) The better practice would have been to file the jury demand and litigate over whether the jury demand should be stricken.
5. “There was no victim, no default…”
TRUE (with some caveats). The AG is acting pursuant to her authority under New York Executive Law 63(12). This statute empowers the AG to civilly sue those who engage in “persistent and repeated fraud and illegality”. It confers standing on the AG, notwithstanding that neither the AG nor New York State are victims of the alleged fraud.
6. “I Should Never Have Been Gagged.”
FALSE (with some caveats). Typically clients know well enough not to comment n pending litigation, let alone to criticize the presiding judge and staff. However, Trump has a history of personal and professional attacks on the character of every person and institution that disagrees with him and uses his perception of injustice as both an election theme and fundraising mechanism.
In a previous post, I explained the competing interests to be considered by a court in imposing a gag order, stating:
A gag order is generally a legal order that prohibits attorneys, their clients, and witnesses in a pending matter from talking about a case to the public. A court considering the imposition of a gag order must overcome a heavy presumption that a gag order would constitute a prior restraint on constitutionally protected free speech rights of the would-be speaker. However, under appropriate and narrowly tailored circumstances, gag orders do not run afoul of constitutionally protected rights and may be granted where a court makes adequate factual findings and considers a competing interest, such as another constitutional right or in the instance of a clear and present danger that a miscarriage of justice might arise.
A balanced gag order would allow Trump to exercise core free speech to the extent is does not jeopardize the proceedings or endanger the court or its staff. Given that this matter is being tried by the judge rather than a jury, there is no risk of the jury being influenced. Accordingly, the gag order should have been narrowly drafted to prohibit inflammatory attacks that might endanger the judge’s family and court staff.
7. The AG is asking for a $370 million judgment now.
TRUE. The AG Now calculates the damages as follows:
The Court should order disgorgement which as of October 27, 2023 totaled $369,948,314, consisting of: (i) $168,040,168 in saved interest on four commercial real estate loans; (ii) $139,408,146 in profit from the sale of [the Old Post Office hotel]; (iii) $60,000,000 in profit from the sale of Ferry Point [Golf Course]; and (iv) $2,500,000 in bonuses paid to Weisselberg and [Trump Org Controller Jeff] McConney. The Court should order Defendants to pay prejudgment interest on those disgorgement amounts at the statutory rate of 9% per annum. (CPLR 5004).