On Saturday, August 24, 2024, Law&Crime reported that former President Donald Trump’s legal team filed a notice of appeal to challenge the ruling of a judge not to recuse in their civil fraud case.

Justice Arthur Engoron of the New York Supreme Court previously denied requests from Trump’s attorneys to recuse himself from the case or hold an evidentiary hearing regarding a conversation the judge had with real estate lawyer Adam Leitman Bailey. Bailey had claimed to a television station that he discussed the case with Engoron for around 90 seconds outside the courtroom several weeks before the ruling was made.

However, Engoron said the brief encounter with Bailey was an insignificant “nothingburger” that did not influence his decision in any way. In his July order denying the recusal motions, the judge described Bailey suddenly approaching and ranting at him about an unspecified legal issue as he exited an elevator. Engoron said he dismissed Bailey’s point of view and quickly left without further discussion.

Unhappy with Engoron’s refusal to recuse or investigate the matter further, Trump’s legal team filed a notice of appeal on August 25th to the Appellate Division, First Department. In the notice, the attorneys argued that Engoron committed legal and factual errors and abused his discretion by remaining on the case without an evidentiary hearing before another judge to determine the accuracy of Bailey’s statements.

They are seeking to overturn the entire $454 million civil fraud judgment issued against Trump and his family business, which found Trump schemed for years to deceive banks and insurers by inflating his wealth on financial statements used to secure loans and make deals. If successful in their appeal, Trump’s team hopes to either get a new judge assigned or justify further scrutiny of Bailey’s claims and whether they prejudiced Engoron against the defendants.

However, Engoron had made clear in his original ruling that Bailey’s impromptu comments did not influence his decision in any way. The judge characterized the brief encounter as an insignificant annoyance rather than a substantive discussion that could have biased him.

 

 

Source: Law&Crime