The order came the same day defendants and state attorneys argued over enforcement of the Feb. 23 judgment.
An appeals court stayed some penalties for former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud judgment, but denied his request to delay enforcement of the monetary penalties.
The court ordered arguments to be filed by March 18, granting in the interim a stay of the judgment that would prohibit the defendants from serving as an officer or director or in financial control of any New York business or legal entity, or bar them from applying for loans.
“The interim stay is denied as to the enforcement of monetary judgment and the installation of an Independent Director of Compliance,” the order reads.
The court noted that the defendants did not ask for the removal of the independent monitor and did not grant it.
Second Request for Stay
In court filings on Wednesday, the defense had offered to post a $100 million bond as they appeal, which the attorney general’s office opposed, demanding the full amount.
“The urgency of this application is evident in light of the punitive and exorbitant disgorgement awarded against Appellants, the impact of the injunctive relief upon lawful businesses, the uncertainty created by the vague and overbroad directives Supreme Court issued, and the Attorney General’s public threats that she will seize Appellants’ real property forthwith to satisfy the Judgment,” the new filing reads.
After receiving a swift rejection from the trial court judge for a stay of judgment last week, attorneys for the defense filed a notice of appeal in the contentious case.
The fraud case against the former president and other Trump Organization executives and entities was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, whom the defense has criticized as politically motivated and for campaigning on a platform to “get Trump.”
The massive penalties came after a 45-day trial that ended early this year, and New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron entered judgment on Feb. 23.
“The judge orders unprecedented and punitive disgorgement of nearly $460 million and overbroad permanent injunctive relief against Appellants in the absence of legal authority or factual support,” the filing reads.
