Left: New York Attorney General Letitia James (AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey). Center: Justice Arthur Engoron (AP Photo/Seth Wenig). Right: Former president Donald Trump (AP Photo/Seth Wenig).
An attorney for former President Donald Trump on Wednesday asked the presiding judge in his New York civil fraud case to allow the defendants, who are currently on the hook for a combined $364 million in penalties “to submit a proposed counter-judgment.”
On Tuesday, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a proposed judgment order with the court to solidify the verdict.
Clifford S. Robert, who represents all of the defendants in the civil fraud case — including Trump, his adult sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, says that filing was “improper, unilateral” and otherwise defective.
The filing by the Empire State’s attorney general is largely pro forma and constructed out of legal boilerplate. Proposed orders are frequently filed by the parties in legal cases as a matter of course.
In the court document, among other things, James rehashes the basic procedural outlines of the case, runs through the various defendants and their liability on the counts, and lists the defendants’ court-ordered financial penalties — leaving blanks for the calculation of 9% annual interest and the total sum inclusive of interest.
Chief among the complaints lodged by Trump’s attorney is that the proposed judgment was filed “on motion” of the attorney general.
This procedural posture “fails to provide any notice whatsoever, thereby depriving Defendants of the opportunity to be heard before judgment is entered,” the defense letter motion argues.
“[T]he Attorney General has now taken it upon herself to submit a proposed judgment to the Clerk of the Court without notice to the Defendants and without conferring with Defendants’ counsel, clearly hoping that the Clerk will issue the Proposed Judgment before Defendants even have a chance to review it, let alone submit a proposed counter-judgment,” the defense motion complains. “This conduct not only violates the February 16 Decision, but it is clearly designed and intended to prejudice the Defendants.”
In the long-running and far-reaching fraud case, several defendants — including numerous Trump-affiliated companies — were found liable on multiple counts on summary judgment in September 2023.
A bench trial — that is, a trial without a jury — on the extent of liability was held between October and December 2023. Earlier this month, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron arrived at a penalty just shy of the $370 million the state had asked for in January.
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘We will ask the judge to seize his assets’: NY AG says if Trump can’t pay $354M fraud fine, his buildings are up for grabs
In addition to the monetary judgment, however, the court has also barred Trump, Weisselberg and another co-defendant from “serving as an officer or director” of a New York business for three years. A similar order bars Trump and his companies from applying for loans during that same time period. Trump’s sons are also barred from holding such business leadership positions in the state for two years.
There are also additional issues left to be sorted out as the court oversees the complicated process of temporarily altering the formal and factual makeup of the Trump family’s business empire.
Key here is an independent monitor, retired judge Barbara Jones, who has long been attached to the case to deal with various financial issues. The James order proposes the issuance of an order outlining the monitor’s new powers post-judgment. And, in a similar vein, James’ proposed judgment echoes the court’s Feb. 16 opinion calling for “an Independent Director of Compliance” who will “be installed at the Trump Organization, at defendants’ expense, to ensure compliance with financial reporting obligations and to establish internal written accounting and financial reporting protocols.”
“Defendants therefore request that the Court set a return date for the Proposed Judgment that affords Defendants sufficient time to submit a proposed counter-judgment,” the motion concludes. “To deprive Defendants of the opportunity to submit a proposed counter-judgment would be contrary to fundamental fairness and due process.”
