Nys Superior Nyag V Trump Et Al Finding of Facts

INDEX NO .
452564/2022
NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF : 09/26/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON ARTHUR F. ENGORON PART 37
Justice
INDEXNO. 452564/2022
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA

08/30/2023
JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW
08/30/2023
YORK
MOTION DATES 09/05/2023
,
Plaintiff
MOTIONSEQ. NO. 026, 027, 028
DONALD J. TRUMP , DONALD TRUMP JR, ERIC TRUMP

ALLEN WEISSELBERG, JEFFREY MCCONNEY, THE
DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST, THE TRUMP
ORGANIZATION, INC. , TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC, DJT
DECISION ORDER ON
HOLDINGS LLC, DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER
MOTIONS
TRUMP ENDEAVOR 12 LLC, 401 NORTH WABASH
VENTURE LLC, TRUMP OLD POST OFFICE LLC, 40
WALL STREET LLC, SEVEN SPRINGS LLC,
Defendants.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number(Motion 026) 765, 766, 767, 768,
769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789,
790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810,
811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831,
832, 833, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892,
893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913,
914, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934,
935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955,
956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976
977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997,
998, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014,
1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1062, 1063,
1064 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079
1080, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095
1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111,
1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127
1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143
1144 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159,
1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175,
1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191,
1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1207
1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223,
1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239
1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255,
1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399,
1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1415,
452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THE STATEOF NEWYORK, BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page1 of35

GENERALOF THE STATEOF NEWYORKvs. TRUMP , DONALDJ. ETAL
MotionNos. 026, 027, 028
1 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 09/26/2023
1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428, 1429, 1430, 1431,
1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447
were read on this motion for PARTIALSUMMARY

JUDGMENT
The following e -filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number ( Motion 027) 834 , 835, 836, 837,
838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844 , 845, 846, 847 , 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854 , 855, 856 , 857 , 858,
859, 860, 861, 862 , 863, 864, 865, 866, 867 , 868, 869 , 870 , 871, 872 , 873, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032,
1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048
1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1277, 1278, 1279,
1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1298,
1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314
1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1329, 1330,
1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1474
were read on this motion for SUMMARYJUDGMENT
The following e - filed documents , listed by NYSCEF document number ( Motion 028 ) 1263, 1264, 1265,
1276, 1448, 1449, 1450 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454 , 1455, 1456 , 1457 , 1458 , 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462,
,
1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1467, 1468 , 1469, 1470 , 1471 , 1472, 1473
werereadon this motionfor SANCTIONS
Uponthe foregoingdocuments, it is hereby ordered that defendants motionfor summary

judgment is denied, plaintiff's motion for partial summaryjudgment is granted in part, and
plaintiff'smotionfor sanctions is granted in part, all as detailed herein.
This action arises out of a years - long investigation that plaintiff, the Office of the Attorney
General ofthe State of New York ( OAG ) , conducted into certain business practices that
defendants engaged in from 2011 through 2021. OAG alleges that the individual and entity
defendants committed repeated and persistent fraud by preparing , certifying , and submitting to
lenders and insurers false and misleading financial statements , thus violating New York
Executive Law 63( 12)
Procedural Background
In 2020 , OAG commenced a special proceeding seeking to enforce a series of subpoenas against
various named defendants and other persons and entities . This Court presided over that
proceeding and issued several orders compelling compliance with OAG's subpoenas . See
People v The Trump Org., Sup Ct, NY County , Index No. 541685/2020 . During that proceeding
and the Trump Organization entered into an agreement , which , broadly speaking , tolled the
statute of limitations from November 5, 2020 , through May 31, 2022. NYSCEF Doc . No. 1260.
On November 3 , 2022 , this Court found preliminarily that defendants had a propensity to engage
in persistent fraud by submitting false and misleading Statements of Financial Condition
( ) on behalf of defendant Donald J. Trump ( Donald Trump ) . NYSCEF Doc . No. 183.
Accordingly , the Court granted a preliminary injunction against any further fraud and appointed
the Hon. Barbara S. Jones (ret.) as an independent monitor to oversee defendants financial
statements and significant asset transfers . NYSCEF Doc . Nos. 193 and 194
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page 2 of 35
GENERALOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALD J. ET AL
MotionNos. 026, 027, 028
2 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint . In a Decision and Order dated January 6, 2023, this
Court denied the motion . NYSCEF Doc . Nos . 453. Defendants appealed , resulting in a January
6 , 2023 Order wherein the Appellate Division, First Department modified this Court's order to
the extent of: ( 1) declaring that the continuing wrong doctrine does not delay or extend [the
statute of limitations ] ; ( 2) finding that claims are timely against defendants subject to the tolling
agreement ifthey accrued after July 13 , 2014 , and timely against defendants not subject to the
tolling agreement ifthey accrued after February 6, 2016 ; and ( 3) dismissing the complaint as
against defendant Ivanka Trump on statute of limitations grounds , finding that she was not an
employee of the Trump Organization at the time at which the parties entered into the tolling
agreement . People v Trump , 217 AD3d 609 ( 1st Dept 2023)
The Appellate Division declined to dismiss any other defendants or any causes of action.
Discoveryended on July 28, 2023, and OAG filed a noteofissue shortlythereafter. NYSCEF
Doc. No.644. OAG now moves for partialsummaryjudgment on its first causeofaction, for
fraudunderExecutiveLaw 63( 12) . NYSCEFDoc. No.765. Separately, plaintiffnow moves,
pursuantto 22 NYCRR130-1.1, to sanctiondefendantsfor frivolousmotionpractice. NYSCEF
Doc. No.1263. Defendantsalso move for summaryjudgment, seekingto dismissthe complaint
in its entirety. NYSCEFDoc. No.834.
Executive Law 63( 12)

ExecutiveLaw 63( 12) provides, as here pertinent, as follows
:
Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal

acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the
carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney
general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New
York, to the supreme court of the state of New York , on notice of
five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business
activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and
damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate
filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred
forty ofthe former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the
general business law, and the court may award the relief applied
for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word fraud
or fraudulent as used herein shall include any device, scheme or
artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation,
concealment, suppression , false pretense, false promise or
unconscionable contractual provisions. The term " persistent
fraud or illegality as used herein shall include continuance or
carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct . The term
" repeated as used herein shall include repetition of any separate
and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more
than one person.
452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THESTATEOF NEW YORK, BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page 3 of 35

GENERALOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALDJ.ETAL
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
3 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2023
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
Arguments Defendants Raise Again
Standing and Capacity to Sue
Defendants arguments that OAG has neither capacity nor standing to sue under Executive Law
63( 12) , and that the disclaimers of non- party accountants Mazars insulate defendants , invoke
the time -loop in the film Groundhog Day. " This Court emphatically rejected these arguments
in its preliminary injunction decision and in its dismissal decision , and the First Department
affirmed both . Defendants contention that a different procedural posture mandates a
reconsideration , or a fortiori, a reversal , is pure sophistry¹
Asthis Courtandothershavemade abundantlyclear, [ i t is not disputedthat the Attorney

Generalis empoweredto sue for violationsof [ ExecutiveLaw 63( 12) Peoplev Greenberg,
21NY3d439, 446 ( 2013) ( findingExecutiveLaw 63( 12) to be broadlywordedanti- fraud
device) Peoplev FordMotor Co., 74 NY2d495, 502 ( 1989) ( ExecutiveLaw 63( 12) is the
proceduralroute by which the Attorney- Generalmay applyto SupremeCourtfor an order
enjoiningrepeatedillegalor fraudulentacts )
ParensPatriae and Consumer Ambit
Defendants repeat the erroneous argument that the complaint must be dismissed because OAG
cannot demonstrate the requirements of a parens patriae action, which is one in the public
interest. Parenspatriae is a common-law standing doctrine that permits the state to commence
an action to protect a public interest, like the safety , health or welfare of its citizens ." People v
Grasso, 11NY3d 64, 72 at n 4 (2008 ). Invocation of such doctrine , or its requirements , is not
necessary where, as here, the New York legislature has specifically empowered the Attorney
General to bring such an action pursuant to Executive Law 63( 12) . People v Credit Suisse Sec.
(USA) LLC, 31 NY3d 622 , 633 (2018) ( it is undisputed that Executive Law 63( 12) gives the
Attorney General standing to redress liabilities recognized elsewhere in the law, expanding the
scope ofavailable remedies People v Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, 137 AD3d 409, 417
( 1st Dept 2016) ( [E ] ven apart from prevailing authority , the language of the statute itself
appears to authorize a cause of action; like similar statutes that authorize causes of action, §
63( 12) defines the fraudulent conduct that it prohibits, authorizes the Attorney General to
commence an action or proceeding to foreclose that conduct, and specifies the relief, including
equitable relief, that the Attorney General may seek ) .
Inany event, even if compliance with the requirements of the parens patriae doctrine is
necessary, which it is not, OAG has easily satisfied those requirements, as it is well-settled that
n varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi -sovereign interest in protecting
the integrity of the marketplace." Grasso at 69 n 4 ; People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345 ,
346 ( 1st Dept 2008) ( the claim pursuant to Executive Law 63( 12) constituted proper exercises
1
Indeed, the Court made this crystal clear in its January 6 , 2023 order when it found: Here, the issues of
capacity and standing, are pure issues of law and do not depend on a trial of disputed issues of
fact. Simply put, who the instant parties are and what the law says, which determine capacity and
standing, arenot disputed issues of fact that need to be tried. NYSCEFDoc. No.453 at 4 .
452564/2022 PEOPLEOFTHE STATEOF NEWYORK BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY

Page4 of 35
GENERALOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALDJ. ETAL
Motion Nos. 026 , 027, 028
4 of 35
INDEX NO. 452564/2022
ofthe State's regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest
marketplace ) ; People v Amazon.com , Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-131 ( SD NY 2021) ( [ T ] he
State's statutory interest under 63( 12) encompasses the prevention of either fraudulent or
illegal business activities . Misconduct that is illegal for reasons other than fraud still implicates
the government's interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of
fairness ).
Defendants rehashedargumentthat OAG'scomplaintmustbe dismissedbecauseit is not

designedto protectconsumersis unavailing. NewYork v Feldman, 210 F Supp2d 294, 299-300
( SD NY2002) ( [ D efendants claim that section63( 12) is limitedto consumerprotection
actions is simply incorrect. The NewYork Attorney Generalhas repeatedlyusedsection63( 12)
to securerelieffor personswho are not consumersin cases that are not consumerprotection
actions ) .
Defendants cite to the trial court decision People v Domino's Pizza, Inc., NY Slip Op 30015 ( U )
( Sup Ct, NY County 2021) , which is not binding on this Court , as authority for the proposition
that any relief sought here should come in the form of private contract litigation, not a law
enforcement action under a statute designed to address public harm ." NYSCEF Doc . No. 835 at
39. However, Domino's is wholly distinguishable from the instant case . There , the Court found
that OAG did not establish that Domino's representations to franchisees were false,
deceptive , or misleading . Accordingly , the Court concludes that OAG has not established that
Domino's engaged in conduct that tends to deceive or creates an atmosphere conducive to
fraud Domino's at . Here, as discussed infra, OAG demonstrates that defendants
repeatedly submitted fraudulent financial documents to obtain financial benefits which otherwise
they would not have received.
Defendants glaringly misrepresent the requirements of an Executive Law 63( 12) cause of
action. Citing to People v Northern Leasing Sys. Inc., 70 Misc 3d 256, 267 (Sup , NY County
2021), defendants assert that OAG must show the practice is one likely to mislead a reasonable
consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances . NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 42. However,
the word consumer does not appear anywhere in the referenced decision, and defendants
characterization of its holding is inaccurate³ Northern Leasing confirms that the "test for fraud
under Executive Law 63( 12) is whether an act tends to deceive or creates an environment
conducive to fraud." Northern Leasing at 267 (further holding Executive Law 63( 12) expands
fraud to encompass new liability, while including non- statutory fraud claims and finding that
[ a] claim under Executive Law 63 ( 12) is the exercise of the State's regulation of businesses
within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace ) .
As the failure to demonstrate false misrepresentations foreclosed the possibility of liability on that issue
in Domino's , any commentary about the statute's requirements was pure dicta.
3
Although consumer does appear in the First Department's affirmance of Northern Leasing, it does not
advance defendants proposition that Executive Law 63 ( 12) actions be consumer oriented ; it simply
reaffirms that the test for fraud is whether the targeted act has the capacity or tendency to deceive, or
creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud 193 AD3d 67 ( 1st Dept 2021) . The fact that Northern
Leasing challenged actions targeted at consumers does not mean that Executive Law 63( 12) is restricted
to such actions .
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATEOF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page5 of 35
GENERALOF THE STATEOF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALD J. ET AL
MotionNos. 026, 027, 028
5 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
Non- Party Disclaimers
Defendants, yet again , argue that OAG's complaint must be dismissed because the contain
language, provided by non- party accountants Mazars , that indicate that they have not audited or
reviewed the accompanying financial statements and therefore cannot express an opinion as to
whether the financial statements comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
( GAAP ) However , as this Court already ruled , these non-party disclaimers do not insulate
defendants from liability , as they plainly state that Donald J. Trump is responsible for the
preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America and for designing , implementing,
and maintaining internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial
statement . NYSCEF Doc . No. 183.
Asthis Court explained in its November 3 , 2022 Decision and Order : [ t he law is abundantly
clear that using a disclaimer as a defense to a justifiable reliance claim requires proof that : ( 1)
the disclaimer is made sufficiently specific to the particular type of fact misrepresented or
undisclosed; and (2) the alleged misrepresentations or omissions did not concern facts peculiarly
within the [defendant's ] knowledge. Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Grp.
Inc. 115 AD3d 128, 137 ( 1st Dept 2014) ( a [plaintiff] may not be precluded from claiming
reliance on misrepresentation of facts peculiarly within the [defendant's] knowledge ) ; People v
Bull Inv. Grp. , Inc., 46 AD2d 25, 29 (3d Dept 1974) ( It has been stated that [ t he rule is clear
that where one party to a transaction has superior knowledge, or means of knowledge not open to
both parties alike, he is under a legal obligation to speak and his silence constitutes fraud ) . As
the did not particularize the type of fact misrepresented or undisclosed and were
unquestionably based on information peculiarly within defendants knowledge, defendants may
not rely on such purported disclaimers as a defense .
Insum, the Mazars disclaimers put the onus for accuracy squarely on defendants shoulders.
Scienter and Participation Requirements

Defendantserroneouslyclaim that Fletcherv Dakota, Inc, 99 AD3d 43, 49 ( 1stDept2012) ,
standsforthe propositionthat the purported" participationelement [ofa cause of action under
ExecutiveLaw 63( 12) ] is satisfiedwherethe defendant directed, controlled, or ratifiedthe
decisionthat ledto plaintiff'sinjury. However, Fletcheris not an ExecutiveLaw 63( 12)
action, it was broughtas a corporatetort; accordingly, is not relevanthere.4 ExecutiveLaw
63( 12) is muchmore thana mere codificationof commonlaw fraud.
Defendants also incorrectly rely on Abrahami v UPC Const. Co., 224 AD2d 231, 233 ( 1st Dept
1996), for the proposition that [ m erely providing copies of purportedly false financial
statements is insufficient ." NYSCEF Doc . No. 835 at 55. However, as Abrahami was not
brought pursuant to Executive Law 63( 12) , its analysis regarding " intent to deceive is
irrelevant. Unlike the situation in Abrahami , where an action is brought pursuant to Executive
Infact, had defendants not cut offthe beginning of the sentence they cited, it would be evident on its
face that such case is legally irrelevant, as the full sentence reads: A leading treatise on corporations
states that a director may be held individually liable to third parties for a corporate tort ifhe either
participated in the tort or else directed, controlled, approved or ratified the decision that led to the
plaintiff's injury Fletcher at 49
452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THE STATEOF NEW YORK, BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page6 of35
GENERALOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALD J. ET AL
MotionNos. 026, 027, 028
6 of 35
INDEX NO. 452564/2022
Law 63( 12) , good faithor lack of fraudulentintentis not in issue." Peoplev InterstateTractor
TrailerTraining Inc., 66 Misc 2d 678, 682 ( Sup Ct, NY County 1971) (holdingliabilityunder
ExecutiveLaw 63( 12) doesnot requiredemonstratingan intentto defraud ) ; Trump
EntrepreneurInitiativeat 417 ( fraudunder section63( 12) may be establishedwithoutproofof
scienteror reliance ) ; BullInv. Grp. at 27 ( [i t is well- settled that the definitionoffraud under
subdivision12 ofsection63 ofthe ExecutiveLawis extremelybroadand proofofscienteris not
necessary )
Disgorgementof Profits
Inflagrant disregard of prior orders of this Court and the First Department , defendants repeat the
untenable notion that disgorgement is unavailable as a matter of law in Executive Law
63( 12) actions . NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 70. This is patently false , as defendants are, or
certainly should be , aware that the Appellate Division, First Department made it clear in this very
case that [ w e have already held that the failure to allege losses does not require dismissal ofa
claim for disgorgement under Executive Law 63( 12) . Trump , 217 AD3d at 610.
Defendants nonetheless rely on the trial court decision in People v Direct Revenue, LLC, 19
Misc 3d 1124(A ) ( Sup Ct, NY County 2008 ), for the proposition that Executive Law 63( 12)
do[ es] no[ t ] authorize the general disgorgement of profits received from sources other than the
public NYSCEF Doc . No. 835 at 71-72 . However, defendants neglect to mention that
Direct Revenue was superseded , and essentially overruled, in 2016 by the New York Court of
Appeals in People v Greenberg, which unequivocally held that disgorgement is an available
remedy under the Martin Act and the Executive Law. " People v Greenberg, 27 NY3d 490, 497
(2016).
Also fatally flawed is defendants reliance on People v Frink Am. Inc., 2 AD3d 1379 , 1380 (4th
Dept 2003 ) , as it relies on the outdated proposition that Executive Law 63( 12) does not create
any new causes of action and thus , the remedy of disgorgement is unavailable . NYSCEF Doc.
No.835 at 73-74 However , in Trump Entrepreneur Initiative , in which at least three ofthe
instant defendants were parties , the First Department unambiguously declared that the Attorney
General is, in fact , authorized to bring a cause of action for fraud under Executive Law
63( 12) Trump Entrepreneur Initiative at 418; see also People v Pharmacia Corp., 27 Misc 3d
368 , 373 ( Sup Ct, NY County 2010 ) ( holding Executive Law 63( 12) applies to fraudulent
conduct actionable at common law, as well as to conduct for which liability arises solely from
the statute ) .
Defendants incorrectly posit that , under People v Ernst & Young LLP, 114 AD3d 569 ( 1st Dept
2014 ) , disgorgement is available under the Martin Act but not under Executive Law 63( 12) .
NYSCEF Doc. No. 836 at 73. This is simply untrue . In Ernst & Young , the First Department
specifically held that disgorgement was an available and potentially crucial remedy in an
Executive Law 63 ( 12) action . Ernst & Young at 570.
Defendants correctly assert that the record is devoid of any evidence of default , breach, late
payment, or any complaint of harm and argue that as none of the recipients of the subject
ever lodged a complaint with OAG or otherwise claimed damages , disgorgement of profits
would be inappropriate . NYSCEF Doc . No. 835 at 40.
452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THE STATEOF NEW YORK, BYLETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page7 of35
GENERALOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALDJ. ET AL
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
7 35
INDEX NO. 452564/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1531 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 09/26/2023
However, that is completely irrelevant. As the Ernst & Young Courtnoted:
here, as here, there is a claimbased on fraudulentactivity,

disgorgementmay be available as an equitable remedy,
notwithstandingthe absence of loss to individualsor independent
claimsfor restitution. Disgorgementis distinctfrom the remedy of
restitutionbecause it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoeras
opposedtothe lossto the victim. Thus, disgorgementaims to
deterwrongdoingby preventingthe wrongdoer from retainingill
gottengains from fraudulentconduct. Accordingly, the remedyof
disgorgementdoes not require a showing or allegationof direct
lossesto consumers or the public; the source ofthe ill-gotten gains
is immaterial.
(disgorgement is not impermissible penalty since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit
gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct ) ( internal
citations omitted) ; see also Amazon.com at 130 ( Executive Law 63( 12) authorizes the
Attorney General to seek injunctive and other relief , and finding the Attorney General can seek
disgorgement of profits on the State's behalf )
Sanctionable Conduct for Frivolous Motion Practice
Inresponse to both OAG's request for a preliminary injunction and to defendants motions to
dismiss , this Court rejected every one of the aforementioned arguments . Inrejecting such
arguments for the second time, this Court cautioned that sophisticated counsel should have
known better. NYSCEF Doc . No. 453 at 5. However, the Court declined to impose sanctions ,
believing it had " made its point. Id.
Apparently , the point was not received .
One would not know from reading defendants papers that this Court has already twice ruled
against these arguments, called them frivolous, and twice been affirmed by the First Department.
Inits discretion, a court may award costs and financial sanctions against an attorney or party
resulting from frivolous conduct. Kamen v Diaz-Kamen, 40 AD3d 937, 937 (2d Dept 2007).
See Yan v Klein, 35 AD3d 729, 729-30 (2d Dept 2006) ( The plaintiff, following two prior
actions, has continued to press the same patently meritless claims, most of which are now
barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel ) .
Defendants conduct in reiterating these frivolous arguments is egregious . We are way beyond
the point of sophisticated counsel should have known better ; we are at the point of intentional
and blatant disregard of controlling authority and law of the case . This Court emphatically
rejected these arguments , as did the First Department . Defendants repetition of them here is
indefensible .
5 The Court even went so far as to caution that the arguments were borderline frivolous even the first
time defendants made them. " NYSCEF Doc . No. 453 at 3.
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page 8 of 35

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALD J. ET AL
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
8 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
Pursuantto New York AdministrativeCode 130-1.1, [ t he Court, as appropriate, may make

suchan awardofcosts or imposesuch financialsanctionsagainsteither an attorney or a party to
the litigationor against both. The provisionfurther statesthat:
For purposes ofthis Part, conduct is frivolous if:
( 1) it is completelywithoutmeritin law andcannotbe supported

by a reasonableargumentfor an extension, modificationor
reversalof existinglaw;
(2 ) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of

the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or
( 3 ) itassertsmaterialfactualstatementsthat are false.
22 NYCRR 130-1.1( c) . Defendants inscrutable persistence in re- presentingthese arguments

clearly satisfies the first of these three possible criteria.
Whenconsideringimposingsanctions" [a mongthe factors [ the court] is directed to consideris

whetherthe conductwas continuedwhen it becameapparent, or shouldhave becomeapparent,
thatthe conductwas frivolous, or when such was broughtto the attentionofthe partiesor to
counsel Levyv CarolMgmt. Corp., 260 AD2d27, 34 ( 1stDept 1999) (furtherfindingthat
sanctionsboth punishpast conduct and " they are goaloriented, in that they are usefulin
deterringfuturefrivolousconduct) .
In its January 6 , 2023 Decision and Order, this Court warned defendants that their reiteration of
these previously rejected arguments] scattered across five different motions to dismis[ s] was
frivolous NYSCEF Doc. No. 453 at 3 .
In a last- ditch attempt to stave off sanctions , defendants have submitted an affirmation by the
Hon. Leonard B. Austin ( ret.) , who had a supremely distinguished judicial career , culminating in
12 years on the Appellate Division, Second Department . NYSCEF Doc. No. 1449. Justice
Austin presents what is essentially a primer on the interplay between motions to dismiss and
motions for summary judgment , and every point of law is valid .
However, itis wholly invalid as a reason for this Court to deny sanctions . First, legal arguments
are for counsel to make, not for experts to submit. The rule prohibiting experts from providing
their legal opinions or conclusions is so well- established that it is often deemed a basic premise
or assumption of evidence law a kind of axiomatic principle . Inre Initial Pub. Offering Sec.
Litig 174 F Supp 2d 61, 64 ( SD NY 2001) ( citing Thomas Baker, The Impropriety of Expert
Witness Testimony on the Law , 40 U Kan LRev 325 , 352 ( 1992) ( precluding " expert affidavits
on the law); accord, Note, Expert Legal Testimony , 97 Harv LRev 797, 797 ( 1984) ( it remains
black- letter law that expert legal testimony is not permissible ) . Neither defendants nor Justice
Austin has sought permission to file an amicus brief. Intheir own submissions , defendants have
expounded on the law of capacity , standing, disclaimers , motions to dismiss , motions for
summary judgment , and sanctions . The heft and prestige of a legal lion adds nothing.
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK , BY LETITIA JAMES ATTORNEY Page 9 of 35
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP , DONALD J. ET AL
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
9 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
More importantly , the subject affirmation utterly fails to fit the specific facts of this case into the
general principles it enunciates . In many situations , discovery, and a complete record, and the
reversal ofthe burden of proof, will turn the tide, requiring that a valid complaint be dismissed
because there is no evidence to support it. But standing and capacity are legal questions , not
factual issues. Crucially , while defendants have, by their own account , conducted extensive
discovery and have created a complete record, they fail to point to a single fact that discovery has
uncovered, let alone a single fact in the record, that changes the calculus of their denied and
doomed capacity and standing arguments .
Capacity and standing are not esoteric concepts . Infants, legally declared incompetents , and
persons under certain legal disabilities are not allowed to sue . The New York Attorney General
is none ofthe above . If my sibling or neighbor is harmed , I do not have standing to sue for his or
her injury Citizens may not sue to prevent governmental actions unless they may suffer some
personal harm . Executive Law 63 ( 12) was promulgated to give the Attorney General standing
to sue on behalf of the people of New York to prevent or deter the precise type of fraud here at
issue. Arguments to the contrary are risible.
Defendants arguments that the factual record developed in discovery changed the landscape
under which standing should be viewed is legally preposterous . The best that defendants could
muster at oral argument was to contend ( incorrectly) that plaintiff cannot sue because the subject
transactions were between private entities , and nobody lost money . However , that is purely an
argument on the merits, not an argument on standing . Taken to its logical extreme , absolutely
any time a defendant denies liability , it could move to dismiss on the ground of lack of standing.
Exacerbating defendants obstreperous conduct is their continued reliance on bogus arguments ,

in papers and oral argument . In defendants world : rent regulated apartments are worth the same
as unregulated apartments ; restricted land is worth the same as unrestricted land; restrictions can
evaporate into thin air; a disclaimer by one party casting responsibility on another party
exonerates the other party's lies; the Attorney General of the State of New York does not have
capacity to sue or standing to sue ( never mind all those cases where the Attorney General has
sued successfully) under a statute expressly designed to provide that right; all illegal acts are
untimely ifthey stem from one untimely act ; and square footage subjective .
That is a fantasyworld, not the realworld.
There is also a larger context to the sanctions issue. Several defendants are no strangers to
sanctions and why courts are sometimes constrained to issue them. In the investigatory special
proceeding this Court found Donald Trump in contempt of Court and sanctioned him $ 10,000
per day for failing to comply with his discovery obligations . This Court lifted the contempt after
days. The First Department affirmed the contempt and the fines . People v Trump , 213 AD3d
503, 504 (1st Dept 2023) ( [ T he financial sanction to compel compliance was a proper exercise
ofthe court's discretionary power and was not excessive or otherwise improper , under the
particular circumstances ) .
In Donald J. Trump v Hillary R. Clinton, 22-14102 - CV- DMM, ( Order on Motion for Indicative
Ruling ) ( filed September 15, 2023) ( SD FL) , Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks denied what in
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page10 of35
GENERALOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALD J. ETAL
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
10 35
INDEX NO. 452564/2022
New York legal parlance would be called a motion to reargue, pursuant to which Donald
Trump asked Judge Middlebrooks to vacate sanctions imposed on him and his legal team totaling
close to one million dollars. Judge Middlebrooks wrote, on the first page thereof, that Movants
acted in bad faith in bringing this lawsuit and that this case exemplifies Mr.Trump's history of
abusing the judicial process. .
Unfortunately , sanctions are the only way to impress upon defendants attorneys the
consequences of engaging in repetitive , frivolous motion practice after this Court , affirmed by
the Appellate Division, expressly warned them against doing so . Boye v Rubin & Bailin, LLP,
152 AD3d 1, 11 ( 1st Dept 2017) ( sanctions serve to deter future frivolous conduct and their
goals include preventing the waste of judicial resources , and deterring vexatious litigation and
dilatory or malicious litigation tactics ) .
Itis of no consequence whether the arguments were made at the direction of the clients or sua
sponte by the attorneys; counsel are ethically obligated to withdraw any baseless and false
claims, ifnot upon [their ] own review of the record, certainly by the time [ the] Supreme Court
advised [them] of this fact." Boye at 11 (upholding sanctions against attorneys because counsel
continued to pursue claims which were completely without merit in law or fact. ); see also
Nachbaur v Am. Transit Ins. Co., 300 AD2d 74 , 75 ( 1st Dept 2002) (motion court properly
sanctioned attorneys for repetitive and meritless motions ); Leventritt v Eckstein, 206 AD2d
313, 314 ( 1st Dept 1994) (affirming sanctions imposed on attorney for repeated pattern of
frivolous conduct ) ; William Stockler & Co. v Heller, 189 AD2d 601, 603 ( 1st Dept 1993)
(affirming sanctions against attorney upon finding " there was no factual or legalbasis for
defendant's original cross motion , or for the reargument motion, that both motions were totally
frivolous and were submitted just really to delay ) . Counsel should be the first line of defense
against frivolous litigation.
Accordingly , this Court grants OAG's motion for sanctions , in part , to the extent of sanctioning
each of defendants attorneys who signed their names to the instant legal briefs , in the amount
of $ 7,500 each, to be paid to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York
no later than 30 days from the date of this Order .
Arguments Defendants Raise for the First Time
SummaryJudgment Standard
prevail on its motion for summary judgment on all causes of action, defendants must first
" make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient
6
One factor Judge Middlebrooks considered was Donald Trump's disregard for legal principles and
precedent. Id at 14. In short , Donald Trump , and his lawyers , are not sanctions neophytes . This is not
their first rodeo.
The following attorneys signed their names to defendants instant briefs and are, accordingly , sanctioned
$ 7,500 each: Michael Madaio, Esq. ( Habba Madaio & Associates , LLP) ; Clifford S. Robert, Esq . (Robert
& Robert PLLC) ; Michael Farina Esq. ( Robert & Robert PLLC) ; Christopher M. Kise, Esq., ( admitted
pro hac vice) (Continental PLLC) ; and Armen Morian ( Morian Law PLLC) .
452564/2022 PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF NEWYORK, BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page11 of35

GENERALOF THESTATEOF NEWYORKvs. TRUMP, DONALDJ.ETAL
MotionNos. 026, 027, 028
11 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case. " Winegrad v New York Univ
Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 , 853 ( 1985) . Failure [ of the movant ] to make such showing requires
denial of the motion , regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers ." Id. Ifthe defendants
make out their prima facie showing , the burden then shifts to plaintiff to offer evidence sufficient
to rebut that showing by identifying disputed issues of fact that should go before a trier of fact .
Defendants strenuously argue throughout their briefs that OAG has not met her burden sufficient
to defeat defendants motion for summary judgment . However , defendants misstate the black
letter law applicable to summary judgment , citing to City Dental Servs . P.C. v New York Cent .
Mut 34 Misc 3d 127( A ) ( App Term 2d, 11th, 13th Jud Dists 2011) for the flatly wrong
proposition that in order to defeat summary judgment on these claims of predicate illegality , the
NYAG must, with respect to each predicate illegality attached , establish [ each element of its
cause with respect to those causes of action . NYSCEF Doc . No. 835 at 62.
Not only does City Dental not stand for that proposition (it merely found that under the
circumstances ofthat case, plaintiff's evidence failed to meet her burden on summary judgment ),
but the law is well-settled that to defeat a motion for summary judgment the opposing party
must show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact, not make out its own case.
Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 ( 1980) . While OAG must establish each and
every element of its cause(s) of action in order to prevail on its own motion for summary
judgment, in order to defeat defendants motion for summary judgment (provided defendants are
able to demonstrate a prima facie case) an opposing party must show facts sufficient to require
a trial of any issue of fact. Guzman v Strab Const. Corp. , 228 AD2d 645, 646 (2d Dept 1996)
evidentiary facts derived from the documents submitted [in opposition to summary judgment
motion] are sufficient to present a triable issue of fact ) .
The Worthless Clause
Defendantsrely on what they call a worthlessclause" set forthinthe SFCs underthe section
entitled Basis of Presentation that reads, as here pertinent, as follows:
Assets are stated at their estimated current values and liabilities at

their estimated current amounts using various valuation methods .
Such valuation methods include, but are not limited to , the use of
appraisals , capitalization of anticipated earnings, recent sales and
offers, and estimates of current values as determined by Mr. Trump
inconjunction with his associates and, in some instances , outside
professionals . Considerable judgment is necessary to interpret
market data and develop the related estimates of current value .
Accordingly , the estimates presented herein are not necessarily
indicative ofthe amount that could be realized upon the disposition
ofthe assets or payment of the related liabilities . The use of
different market assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may
have a material effect on the estimated current value amounts .
NYSCEF Doc . Nos . 769 at 7 ; 770 at 7 ; 771 at 7 ; 772 at 7 ; 773 at 7 .
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK , BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page12of35
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
12 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
Inhis sworn deposition, Donald Trump spent a lot of time invokingthis clause: Well, they call
it a disclaimer. They call it worthless clause too, because it makes the statement worthless.
NYSCEF . No. 859 at 67. DonaldTrump goes on to say that have a clause in there that
says, don't believethe statement, go out and do your own work. This statement is worthless. It
means nothing. Id. at 68. Furthermore, DonaldTrump implies that he did not considerit
importantto reviewthe SFCs for accuracy becauseofthe existence of this purported " worthless
clause :
Doesthis refreshyour recollectionofthe processwhereby

you wouldgetfinalreviewofthe Statementof Financial
Condition
?
DJT: Yeah, I think generally. It's interesting. I would say as

years went by, I got less and less and then once I became
President, I would if I saw it at all, I'd see it, you know,
afterit was alreadydone.
: So inthe period
DJT: Again, you know, I hate to be boring and tell you this.
When you have the worthless clause on a piece of paper
and the first literally the first page you're reading about
how this is a worthless statement from the standpoint of
your using it as a bank or whatever whoever may be using
it, you tend not to get overly excited about it. I think ithad
very little impact, if any impact on the banks.
So am I understanding that you didn't particularly care

about what was in the Statement of Financial Condition?
I didn't get involved in it very much . I felt it was a

meaningless document , other than it was almost a list of my
properties , with good faith effort of people trying to put
some value down. It was a good faith effort.
Id. at 107-108 . Defendants further submit the affidavit and deposition transcript of Robert Unell,
who purports to be an expert in commercial real estate , for the proposition that because of the
worthless clause in the SFC , no lender relies on these for what it is ." NYSCEF Doc. Nos.
1030 at 183-184 ; 1031.
However, defendants reliance on these " worthless disclaimers is worthless . The clause does
not use the words " worthless or useless or " ignore" or disregard or any similar words . It
does not say, " the values herein are what I think the properties will be worth in ten or more
years Indeed, the quoted language uses the word " current" no less than five times , and the
word " future zero times .
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY

Page 13 of 35
Motion Nos. 026 , 027, 028
13 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
Additionally, as discussed supra, a defendant may not rely on a disclaimer for misrepresentation
offacts peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge. Basis Yield Alpha Fund at 136. Here, as
the valuations of the subject properties are , obviously , peculiarly within defendants knowledge,
their reliance on them is to no avail.
Furthermore , [ t his special facts doctrine applies regardless ofthe level ofsophistication ofthe
parties TIAA Glob. Invs. LLC v One Astoria Square LLC, 127 AD3d 75, 87 ( 1st Dept 2015)
(emphasis added) ( holding disclaimer does not bar liability for fraud where facts were peculiarly
within disclaiming party's knowledge) .
Thus, the worthless clause does not say what defendants say it says, does not rise to the level
ofanenforceabledisclaimer, and cannotbe usedto insulatefraud as to facts peculiarlywithin
defendants knowledge, even vis- à- vis sophisticatedrecipients.
The TollingAgreement
The First Department has declared that claims are timely against defendants subject to the tolling
agreement ifthey accrued after July 13, 2014, and claims against defendants not subject to the
tolling agreement are timely ifthey accrued after February 6, 2016. Trump 217 AD3d at 611.
Defendants concede that the tolling agreement binds each of the LLC-defendants and the Trump
Organization. However, they argue that each of the individual defendants and the Donald J.
Trump Revocable Trust (the DJT Revocable Trust ) are not bound by the agreement.
Alan Garten, the Trump Organization's Chief Legal Officer , originally entered into the tolling
agreement on behalf of the Trump Organization on August 27, 2021 ; the agreement was
extended one time by an amendment dated May 3, 2022. NYSCEF Doc . No. 1260. It tolls the
statute of limitations for the period from November 5, 2020 , through May 31, 2022. Id. at 2 .
The agreement contains a footnote to the entity the Trump Organization that reads as follows :
As noted inthe December 7 , 2019 subpoena issued in this

investigation to the Trump Organization, the Trump
Organization as used herein includes The Trump Organization,
Inc; DJT Holdings LLC; DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC ;
and any predecessors , successors , present or former parents,
subsidiaries, and affiliates, whether direct or indirect; and all
directors , officers, partners, employees , agents, contractors,
consultants , representatives , and attorneys of the foregoing, and
any other Persons associated with or acting on behalf ofthe
foregoing, or acting on behalf of any predecessors , successors , or
affiliates of the foregoing.
at 4 n 1.
Thus, the tolling agreement at issue here binds all directors [ and] officers and " present or
former parents of the Trump Organization and its affiliates and subsidiaries. Id. Itis
undisputed that at the time the tolling agreement was executed, each individual defendant,
Donald J. Trump , Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump , Allen Weisselberg, and Jeffrey McConney,
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES , ATTORNEY Page 14 of 35

MotionNos. 026, 027, 028
14 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 09/26/2023
were alldirectorsand/ or officersofthe Trump Organization. NYSCEFDoc. No.1293 at 673,

680, 696, 710, 736.
Defendants argue that the non- signatory defendants are not bound by the agreement , citing
Highland Crusader Offshore Partners , L.P. v Targeted Delivery Techs . Holdings , Ltd. 184
AD3d 116 , 121 ( 1st Dept 2020 ) , for the " general principal that only the parties to a contract are
bound by its terms ." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 27. However , defendants fail to quote the
following sentence , which provides that [ a] non- signatory may be bound by a contract under
certain limited circumstances . Highland at 122. See also Oberon Sec ., LLC v Titanic Ent.
Holdings LLC, 198 AD3d 602 , 603 ( 1st Dept 2021) ( non- signatory companies bound by
agreement with language defining signatory to include all subsidiaries , affiliates , [ and]
successors ) .
InPeople v JUUL Labs, Inc., 212 AD3d 414, 417 (1st Dept 2023), in a case involving nearly
identical language in a corporate tolling agreement , the First Department recently held that non
signatory corporate affiliates , officers , and directors were bound by the agreement . Similarly ,
here all the individual defendants are bound by the instant tolling agreement's terms and may be
held liable for any claims that accrued after July 13, 2014.
Defendants argue that OAG is judicially estopped from asserting that the agreement binds the
individual defendants based on statements OAG's counsel made during oral argument in the
investigatory special proceeding . NYSCEF Doc . No. 1292 at 26. Specifically , on April 25,
2022 , while seeking to hold Donald Trump in contempt for failing to comply with court orders ,
counsel stated : [ t here is hard prejudice because Donald Trump is not a party to the
tolling agreement , that tolling agreement only applies to the Trump Organization . " NYSCEF
Doc. No. 1041 at 59.
Forjudicialestoppelto be applicable: First, the party againstwhom the estoppelis asserted

musthaveargued an inconsistentpositionina prior proceeding and second, the prior
inconsistentpositionmusthave been adopted by the court in somemanner. Bates v Long
IslandR.Co., 997 F2d 1028, 1038 ( 2d Cir 1993) .
Defendants are correct that the first prong is satisfied , in that the statements OAG's counsel
made during oral argument are inconsistent with the position OAG is now taking. However,
defendants cannot demonstrate that this Court adopted the prior position. Indeed, this Court did
not need to, and did not, consider the tolling agreement when it issued its April 26, 2022
Decision and Order finding Donald Trump in contempt. See Ghatani v AGH Realty, LLC, 181
AD3d 909, 911 (2d Dept 2020) ( For the doctrine [of judicial estoppel] to apply , there must be a
final determination endorsing the party's inconsistent position in the prior proceeding ) .
This Court has not addressed the tolling agreement until now. Accordingly, defendants cannot
demonstrate that this Court adopted OAG's prior inconsistent position.
The substantially similar tolling agreement at issue in Juul can be found under Index No.452168/2019,
NYSCEF Doc. No. 176.
MotionNos. 026, 027, 028
15 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
Moreover, [t he party asserting estoppel must show with respect to himself : ( 1) lack of
knowledge of the true facts ; ( 2 ) reliance upon the conduct of the party estopped ; and ( 3 ) a
prejudicial change in his position . BWA Corp. Alltrans Exp . U.S.A. Inc., 112 AD2d 850 ,
853 ( 1st Dept 1985) . Here, none ofthe defendants claim that they changed their positions or
courses ofconduct in reliance upon the statement of OAG's counsel during oral argument .
Finally, while judicial estoppel may be applied to prohibit inconsistent changes in factual
positions, courts have declined to extend the doctrine to changes in legal positions. Seneca
Nation of Indians v New York , 26 F Supp 2d 555 , 565 (WD NY 1998) , affd 178 F3d 95 (2d Cir
1999) (finding [ t here is no legal authority for " broadening of the doctrine" to " include
seemingly inconsistent legal positions ) . Who physically signed the agreement is a question of
fact; whom it binds is a question of law.
Defendants argument that the DJT Revocable Trust is not bound by the tolling agreement falls
flat. Inhis deposition, Donald Trump affirmed under oath that the assets ofthe Trump
Organization are held in the DJT Revocable Trust , for which he is the sole donor and
beneficiary NYSCEF Doc . No. 859 at 21. Donald Trump also affirmed that at the time the trust
was formed, he was the sole trustee and remained the sole trustee until2017, when defendants
Allen Weisselberg and Donald Trump , Jr. became the sole trustees . Id. at 20-24.
As every beneficiary , donor , and trustee of the DJT Revocable Trust is a defendant bound by the
tolling agreement, and as the trust is unquestionably a parent" of the Trump Organization , so
too does the tolling agreement bind the DJT Revocable Trust . See People v Leasing Expenses
Co. LLC, 199 AD3d 521, 522 ( 1st Dept 2021) ( It may likewise be inferred that the trustees had
knowledge ofthe activities of the businesses they controlled through the trust mechanism .
Hence , under Executive Law 63 ( 12) , the family trusts and trustees may likewise be held liable
for the fraud ) ; see e.g. Kurzman v Graham, 12 Misc 3d 586, 590 ( Sup Ct, NY County 2006)
courts will not allow the owner of assets to evade creditors by placing the property in a trust
while retaining a right to revoke the trust ) .
Defendantscite to New York Estates, Powers and Trust Law § 11-1.1( b ) ( 17) for the proposition
that only a trustee may bind a trust to an agreement. However, 11-1.1( b ) ( 17) does not state
this; rather, it states:
( b ) Inthe absence of contrary or limiting provisions inthe court

order or decree appointing a fiduciary, or in a subsequentorder or
decree, or inthe will, deed or other instrument, every fiduciary is
authorized:
( 17) execute and deliver agreements , assignments , bills of sale ,

contracts , deeds , notes , receipts and any other instrument necessary
or appropriate for the administration of the estate or trust.
This provision simply says what a fiduciary is permitted to do in the absence of a contrary
provision. It does nothing to advance defendants argument that only a trustee may bind a trust ,
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES , ATTORNEY Page 16 of 35
Motion Nos. 026 , 027 , 028
16 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
particularly since defendants fail to cite to any provision of the DJT Revocable Trust restricting
who can bind it, as § 11-1.1(b ) ( 17) anticipates.
Moreover, Kornv Korn, 206 AD3d 529, 530 ( 1st Dept2022) , upon which defendants
inexplicably rely, is irrelevant to the instant analysis , as that case involved an examination by the
court as to whether a fiduciary had a right or duty to negotiate on behalf of an estate pursuant to
11-1.1( b ) ( 13) , not pursuant to 11-1.1( b ) ( 17) , to which defendants cite.
Finally, the Attorney General should not be limited, in [ her] duty to protect the public interest,
by an agreement [ s he did not join." People v Coventry First LLC, 13 NY3d 108 , 114 (2009)
( holding Attorney General not bound by arbitration agreement when pursuing Executive Law
63( 12) claim and finding [ s uch an arrangement between private parties cannot alter the
Attorney General's statutory role or the remedies that [ s he is empowered to seek ) .
The tolling agreement was a mutually beneficial and common arrangement pursuant to which
agreed to hold off suing, and Alan Garten, on behalf of the Trump Organization , agreed to
toll the statute of limitations . All defendants received the benefit ofthe bargain; OAG held off
suing OAG is entitled to its benefit of the bargain, the tolling of the statute of limitations, for
the limited agreed-upon time, as against anyone it could have sued for the matters at issue at the
time at which the agreement was executed . OAG clearly did not intend to permit defendants
principals to evade the tolling agreement based on a technicality contrary to the spirit ofthe
agreement and controlling caselaw .
Statute of Limitations
a general rule, statutes of limitation start running when a claim accrues , that is , when it can be
sued upon. In arguing that OAG's causes of action are untimely , defendants incorrectly assert
that the statute of limitations starts running on the date the parties entered into the subject
agreements , or when the loans closed . However, the First Department did not use the word
" closed , it used the word completed ." Trump , 217 AD3d at 611. Obviously , the transactions
were not completed while the defendants were still obligated to, and did , annually submit
current SFCs to comply with the terms of the loan agreements .
Defendants further assert that any continuing documentation provided after the agreements were
entered into, or when the loans closed , is of no consequence if the proceeds were distributed
prior to July 2014. NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 18. This argument is unavailing . As OAG asserts ,
each submission of an SFC after July 13, 2014 , constituted a separate fraudulent act . Indeed,
each submission of a financial document to a third - party lender or insurer would requir [ e] a
separate exercise of judgment and authority triggering a new claim . Yin Shin Leung Charitable
Found. v Seng, 177 AD3d 463 , 464 ( 1st Dept 2019 ) ( finding continuous series of wrongs each of
which gave rise to its own claim ) .
Defendants mistakenly assert that ifa loan agreement was entered into and its proceeds were
dispersed prior to the applicable statute of limitations , then a claim arising out of submitting any
subsequent contractually required financial documentation is also untimely , irrespective of when
that documentation is submitted . Defendants would have this Court apply a bizarre , invented ,
inverted form of the relation back doctrine , pursuant to which ifone aspect of fraudulent
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
17 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
business conduct falls outside the statute of limitations , then all subsequent aspects of fraudulent
conduct also fall outside the statute , no matter how inextricably intertwined .
course, this is contrary to controllingcase law, which holds that a cause of actionaccruesat
the time when one misrepresentsa materialfact." Graubard Mollen Dannett & Horowitzv
Moskovitz, 86 NY2d 112, 12 ( 1995) . Moreover, even the plainlanguage of ExecutiveLaw
63( 12) states: [ t he term repeated as hereinshall include repetitionof any separateand
distinctfraudulentor illegalact ( emphasis added) . Clearly, the submission of each separate
fraudulentSFC is a distinct fraudulentact.
is not challengingthe loans, the closings, or the disbursements; it is challenging

defendants submissionsof financialdocumentscontainingfalse and misleadinginformation.
Thus, any SFCthat was submittedafter July 13, 2014, falls withinthe applicablestatuteof
limitations. CW CapitalCobaltVR Ltd.v CW CapitalInvs. LLC, 195 AD3d 12, 19-20( 1st
Dept2021) ( eachinstanceof wrongfulconduct a separate, actionablewrong giving riseto a
new claim ) .
Materiality
Itis settledthata standalonecauseofactionunderExecutiveLaw 63( 12) does not require a

demonstrationofmaterialitybut merely that an act has the capacity or tendency to deceive, or
createsanatmosphereconduciveto fraud." Peoplev Gen. Elec. Co., 302 AD2d 314, 314-315
( 1st Dept2003) ( holdingthat, unlike GBL 349, plaintiffneed not prove the challengedactor
practice was misleadingin a materialway ) .
Althoughthe Domino's court found that evidence regardingfalsity, materiality, relianceand

causationplainlyis relevantto determiningwhetherthe Attorney Generalhas establishedthat
the challengedconducthas the capacity or tendencyto deceive, or createsan atmosphere
conduciveto fraud ( Domino'sat 11) , every Appellate Divisionand the New York Courtof
Appealsnow hold that materialityand scienter are not requirementsfor liabilityunder 63( 12) .
However, as discussed infra, although materiality is required under the second through seventh
causes of action, it is not required under a standalone cause of action under Executive Law
63( 12) , the OAG's first cause ofaction .
Defendantsargue that the SFCswere not materiallymisleading, claiming, inter alia that: ( 1)
[t hereis no suchthingas objectivevalue ; ( 2) a substantialdifferencebetweenvaluationin
the and appraisal, per se, is not evidence of inflatedvalues ( 3 ) there is nothingimproper
aboutusing fixedassets valuations as opposed to usingthe currentmarketvaluationapproach;
and ( 4 ) it was properto include internallydevelopedintangibles, such as the brandpremium
usedinthe valuationof PresidentTrump's golfclubs, in personalfinancialstatements.
NYSCEF No. 1292 at 20-23.
Thus, defendantsessentiallyarguethat value is inherentlysubjective; that becauseinternalbrand

valuationsare inthe eye ofthe beholder ( here, Donald Trump) , they cannotbe overvalued.
Defendantsarguethat " [ n o bank or underwriterwould havereasonablybeen materiallymisled
bythe alleged misstatementsor omissionsinthe and other informationthe Defendants
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page 18of35
MotionNos. 026, 027, 028
18 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
madeavailableto their counterpartiesbecauseno sophisticatedcounterpartywouldhave

consideredthe and other informationprovidedby the Defendantsalone as materialto
extend credit or set an interest rate, or issuean insurancepolicy or price a risk, withoutdoing
their owndue diligence." NYSCEFDoc. No. 835 at 45.
Defendants also argue: [ i t follows that if the user [ of the SFCs] is in possession of the correct
information, then the financialstatements are not materiallymisstated. Id. at 39. Defendants
stance is, practically speaking, that they may submit false SFCs so long as the recipientsknow
from their own due diligence, that the informationis false.
Accepting defendants premise would require ignoring decades of controlling authority holding
that financial statements and real property valuations are to be judged objectively , not
subjectively FMC Corp. v Unmack, 92 NY2d 179, 191 ( 1998) ( objectively reasonable
conclusion, drawn by a competent and experience appraiser, was based on credible evidence
that demonstrated property was overvalued ) ( emphasis added) ; Assured Guar . Mun . Corp.
DLJ Mortg Cap. Inc., 44 Misc 3d 1206( A ) ( Sup Ct, NY County 2014) ( Credit Suisse is reading
this as a subjective standard , dependent on Assured's expectations . Credit Suisse is wrong . It is
well settled that this is an objective standard ) .
Moreover, courts have long found that generally , it is the market value which provides the
most reliable valuation for assessment purposes ." Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v Kiernan, 42
NY2d 236, 239 ( 1977) ; Consol . Edison Co. ofNew York v City of New York , 33 AD3d 915,
916 (2d Dept 2007) ( the standard for assessment remains market value ) , affd 8 NY3d 591.
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder , but value is in the eye of the marketplace .
Further, defendants assertion that the discrepancies between their valuations and the OAG's are
immaterial is nonsense . What OAG has established , in many cases by clear, indisputable
documentary evidence ( as discussed infra) , is not a matter of rounding errors or reasonable
experts disagreeing . OAG has submitted conclusive evidence that between 2014 and 2021,
defendants overvalued the assets reported in the SFCs between 17.27-38.51% ; this amounts to a
discrepancy ofbetween $ 812 million and $ 2.2 billion dollars . NYSCEF Doc . No. 766 at 70.
Even inthe world of high finance , this Court cannot endorse a proposition that finds a
misstatement of at least $ 812 million dollars to be " immaterial . Defendants have failed to
identify any authority for the notion that discrepancies ofthe magnitude demonstrated here could
be considered immaterial .
The Secondthrough Seventh Causes of Action
The Second Third , Fourth, Fifth, Sixth , and Seventh causes of action allege violations of
Executive Law 63( 12) based on underlying violations of the New York Penal Law prohibiting
falsification of business records , issuance of false financial statements , and insurance fraud .
Liability underNew York Penal Law 175.05 (falsifying business records in the second degree)
requires that a person [ m akes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.
Liability under New York Penal Law 175.45 (issuing a false financial statement) requires that a
person represents in writing that a written instrument purporting to describe a person's financial
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK , BY LETITIA JAMES , ATTORNEY Page19 of35
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
19 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
condition or ability to pay as of a prior date is accurate with respect to such person's current
financial condition or ability to pay, whereas [ that person] knows it is materially inaccurate in
that respect.
LiabilityunderNew York PenalLaw 176.05( insurancefraud) requiresthat a personsubmitted

an applicationfor insuranceeither: ( 1) knowingthat it contain[ ed] materiallyfalse information
concerningany fact materialthereto ; or (2 ) " conceal[ ed] , for the purposeofmisleading
,
informationconcerningany fact materialthereto.
Accordingly , unlike a standalone cause of action under Executive Law 63 12) the second
through seventh causes of action require demonstrating some component of intent and
materiality People v Alamo Rent A Car, Inc., 174 Misc 2d 501, 505 (Sup Ct, NY County 1997)
As in all other situations requiring mens rea, however, petitioners may prove, by reference to
facts and circumstances surrounding the case, that respondents knew that their conduct was
unlawful Moreover, petitioners need not prove respondents acted with an evil motive , bad
purpose or corrupt design ) (internal citations omitted).
has demonstratedthat there remain, at the very least, disputedissues offact as to whether
defendantsviolatedthese statutes, intentionallyand materially. Thus, there are issues offact as
to causes of action two through seventhat requirea trial.
The Court has considered defendants remaining arguments and finds them to be unavailing
and/or non- dispositive .
Accordingly, defendants motionfor summaryjudgmentdismissingevery causeofactionis

deniedin its entirety.
OAG'SMOTIONFOR PARTIALSUMMARYJUDGMENT
ON ITS FIRSTCAUSE OF ACTION
Summary Judgment Burden on Standalone Executive Law § 63 ( 12) Cause of Action

OAG moves for partial summary judgment, seeking to hold defendants liable under OAG's first
cause of action, for fraud under Executive Law 63 ( 12) .
As this Court has noted ad nauseum , Executive Law 63 ( 12) authorizes the Attorney General
to bring a special proceeding against any person or business that engages in repeated or
persistent fraudulent or illegal conduct , while broadly construing the definition of fraud so as to
include acts characterized as dishonest or misleading and eliminating the necessity for proof of
an intent to defraud ." People v Apple Health & Sports Club Ltd. Inc., 206 AD2d 266-267 ( 1st
Dept 1994) .
first cause ofaction, the only one upon which it movesfor summaryjudgment,
alleges a standaloneviolationofExecutiveLaw 63( 12) , OAG need only prove: ( 1) the
werefalse andmisleading; and ( 2 ) the defendantsrepeatedlyor persistentlyusedthe SFCsto
transactbusiness.
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
20 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
This instantaction is essentiallya documentscase." As detailed infra, the documentshere

clearlycontainfraudulent valuations that defendantsused inbusiness, satisfying burden
to establishliability as a matteroflaw againstdefendants. Defendants respondthat: the
documentsdo not say what they say; that there is no suchthingas objective" value; andthat,
essentially, the Courtshould not believeits owneyes.
The defenses Donald Trump attempts to articulate in his sworn deposition are wholly without
basis in law or fact . He claims that ifthe values of the property have gone up in the years since
the were submitted , then the numbers were not inflated at that time (i.e.; But you take the
2014 statement , if something is much more valuable now or , I guess , we'll have to pick a date
which was a little short of now. But if something is much more valuable now, then the number
that I have down here is a low number ) . NYSCEF Doc . No. 1363 at 69-75) . He also seems to
imply that the numbers cannot be inflated because he could find a buyer from Saudi Arabia to
pay any price he suggests . Id. at 30-33 , 60-62 , 79-80 .
The Trump Tower Triplex

This Court takes judicial notice that the Trump Tower apartment in which Donald Trump resided
for decades (the Triplex ) is 10,996 square feet. NYSCEF Doc. No. 816 at 2. Between 2012
2016, Donald Trump submitted SFCs falsely claiming that the Triplex was 30,000 square feet,
resulting in an overvaluation of between $ 114-207 million dollars . NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 782 at
Rows 833-834, 1028, 783 at Rows 799-800 , 1199, 784 at Rows 843-844, 785 at Rows 882-883,
789 at Row 913, 817. The misrepresentation continued even after defendants received written
notification from Forbes that Donald Trump had been overestimating the square footage ofthe
Triplex by a factor of
In opposition , defendants absurdly suggest that the calculation of square footage is a subjective
process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct
the calculation . NYSCEF Doc . No. 1293 at 20. Well yes , perhaps , if the area is rounded or
oddly shaped, it is possible measurements of square footage could come to slightly differing
results due to user error . Good - faith measurements could vary by as much as 10-20% , not 200% .
As Chico Marx, playing Chicolini, says to Margaret Dumont, playing Mrs.Gloria Teasdale, in
Soup " well, who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?
This statementmay suggest influence buying more than savvy investing
Three days after receiving a written inquiry from Forbes, Trump Organization Vice President, Amanda
Miller, sent an email to Trump Organization Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Alan
Garten, indicatingthat she spoke to Allen W [ eisselberg] re: Trump World Tower and Trump Tower]
we are going to leave those alone." NYSCEF Doc . No. 821. Although OAG need not show intent to
deceive under a standalone 63( 12) cause of action , this directive to continue to use a grossly inflated
number despite clear knowledge it is false demonstrates the repetitive and ongoing nature of defendants
propensity to engage in fraud .
Despite this assertion in their motion papers , counsel for defendants , Christopher Kise, Esq, conceded
during oral argument held on September 22, 2023 , that square footage is, in fact , an objective number .
452564/2022 PEOPLEOFTHE STATEOF NEWYORK, BYLETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page21of 35

GENERALOF THE STATEOF NEWYORKvs.TRUMP, DONALDJ.ET AL
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
21 of 35
INDEX NO. 452564/2022
A discrepancyofthis order ofmagnitude, by a realestate developer sizing up his ownliving

spaceofdecades, can only be consideredfraud. 13
unquestionablysatisfies its two- prongburdenofdemonstratingthe SFCs from 2012-2016

calculatedthe value ofthe Triplex based on a false and misleadingsquarefootage, and that some
ofthe defendantsrepeatedlyand persistentlyused the SFCs to transactbusiness.
Seven Springs Estate
DefendantSeven Springs LLC owns over 200 acres of contiguousland in the towns ofBedford,
NewCastle andNorthCastle in WestchesterCounty, New York.
In2000, non- party the Royal Bank of Pennsylvaniaappraised the as is marketvalue of Seven
Springsto be $25 million if convertedto residentialdevelopment. NYSCEF Doc. No. 825. In
2006, the same bank performeda new appraisal, which showed SevenSpringshad an as is"
marketvalue of $ 30 million. NYSCEF Doc. No.826.
In2012, Seven Springs LLC receivedanother appraisalthat estimateda six- lot subdivision on
the New Castle portion of the property to have a fair market value of approximately $ 700,000
per- lot. NYSCEF Doc. No. 829 at 203-206.
InJuly 2014, because the Trump Organizationwas consideringdonatinga conservation

easement, itretainedCushman & Wakefieldto provide a range ofvalue" ofthe SevenSprings
property NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 830, 831. Cushman & Wakefield'sappraiser, DavidMcArdle,
analyzedthe sale ofeight lots in Bedford, six lots inNew Castle, and ten lots in NorthCastleand
determinedthe fairmarketvalue for all24 lots was approximately$ 30 million. NYSCEFDoc.
831, 832.
Notwithstandingreceivingmarketvalues from professionalappraisalsin2000, 2006, 2012, and

2014 valuingSeven Springs at or below$ 30 million, DonaldTrump's 2011 SFCreportedthe
value to be $261 million, and his 2012, 2013 and2014 SFCsreportedthe value to be $291
million. NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 769, 770, 771, 772.
13 In fact, OAG demonstrates that as of 2012, no apartment sold in New York City had ever approached
the price at which defendants valued the Triplex, notingthat the highest overall sale at that time was $88
million for a Central Park West penthouse. The SFCs valued the Triplex at a staggering $ 180,000,000
$327,000,000 for the years 2012-2016 . NYSCEF Doc. No. at
14 The statutes of limitations have run for all claims that accrued before July 13, 2014. However, although
not actionable by themselves, evidence of fraud that predates July 13, 2014, may stillbe used as evidence
in evaluatingOAG's request for permanentinjunctive relief, wherein the Court must determinewhether
there has been a showingof a reasonable likelihoodof a continuingviolation based uponthe totality of
the circumstances. " People v Greenberg, 27 NY3d490, 496-97 ( 2016) ( detailingstandard for permanent
injunctivereliefunderExecutive Law 63( 12) and reject[ ing] defendants argumentsthat the Attorney
Generalmust show irreparable harm in order to obtain a permanent injunction ) .
452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THE STATEOF YORK, BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page 22 of 35

Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
22 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
Inearly 2016, Cushman & Wakefield performed another appraisal of Seven Springs, which
includedthe planned development, and determined that as of December 1 , 2015 , the entire parcel
was worth $ 56.6 million. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 824 at 9 ; 875 ; 876.
Evengiving defendantsthe benefitofthe $ 56.6 millionfigure as ofDecember1, 2015, the value

submittedon DonaldTrump's 2014 SFC was inflatedby over 400% . Accordingly, OAGhas
demonstratedliability for the false 2014 SFC for fraudulentlyinflatingthe value of Seven
Springs
Trump Park Avenue

TrumpParkAvenue is a residentialbuildingincludedas an asset on DonaldTrump'sSFCsfor
the years 2011-2021. NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 769-779. In 2011, 12 ofthe unsold residential
condominiumunits were subjectto New York City's rent regulationlaws. NYSCEFDoc. No.
948 at 3. By2014, nineunits remainedsubject to rent restrictions. NYSCEFDoc. No.966. By
2020, six unitsremainedsubjectto rentrestrictions. NYSCEFDoc. No.971.
A 2010 appraisal performed by the Oxford Group valued the 12 rent- stabilized units at $ 750,000
total , or $ 62,500 per unit. NYSCEF Doc . No. 952. A 2020 appraisal performed by Newmark
Knight Frank valued the six units that remained subject to stabilization at $ 22,800,090 total , or
$ 3,800,315 per unit. NYSCEF Doc. No. 972 .
Notwithstanding, for the years 2014-2021, the Trump Organization submitted SFCs that valued
these rent-restrictedunits as if they were unencumbered, inflating the value of each unit between
as much700% (in2014) and 64 % ( in 2021) . NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 772-779.
In an unsuccessful attempt to rebut OAG's prima facie demonstration , defendants proffer that the
units are not overvalued because the rent- stabilized units have the potential at some point in the
future to be converted into unencumbered (by rent stabilization ) units . NYSCEF Doc . No.
1292 at 57. They further concede that [t his is the assumption the owner made when assessing
potential asset pricing or value ." Id.
As every New Yorker knows, rent regulated units may be passed on from one generation to the next in
perpetuity
452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THE STATE OF NEWYORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page 23 of 35

GENERALOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs.TRUMP, DONALD J. ETAL
MotionNos. 026 , 027, 028
23 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
However, the SFCs are required to state current" values, not someday, maybe values. At the
time defendants providedthe subject SFCs to third parties they unquestionably falsely inflated
the value ofthe units based on a false premise that they were unrestricted.
40 WallStreet
The Trump Organization, through defendant 40 Wall Street LLC, owns a ground lease at 40
Wall Street and pays ground rent to the landowner.
In2010, Cushman& Wakefieldappraisedthe Trump Organization'sinterest in 40 Streetat

$200 million. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 878-79. Cushman & Wakefieldappraisedagain in 2011 and
2012, reachingvaluationsofbetween$200 and $ 220 million. NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 881-82. The
TrumpOrganizationpossessedand was familiarwiththese appraisals. NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 817
at 135-138 883.
Despitetheseappraisals, the 2011 and 2012 SFCs valued the Trump Organization's interest in
the property at $ 524.7 million and $ 527.2 million, respectively, an overvaluation of more than
$ 300 millioneach year. NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 769, 770.
In2015 , Cushman & Wakefield once again appraised the property , and valued it at $540
NYSCEF Doc . No. 887. Notwithstanding this appraised value , the 2015 SFC listed
the value of40 Wall Street at $ 735.4 million.¹9 NYSCEF Doc . No. 773.
16 MazarsaccountantDonald Bendertestified that when he asked Jeffrey McConney, Do you have any
other appraisals? Jeffrey McConneystated have nothingelse, demonstratingan intent to concealor
misleadthe accountants. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1262at 243.
Further, Patrick Birney, a Trump Organization employee working directly under Jeffrey McConney ,
conceded that the Trump Organization maintained a spreadsheet for day -to - day operations on the Trump
Park Avenue offering plan that included both the offering plan prices and the current market values , but
that the Trump Organization concealed its own actual market estimates from Mazars by omitting the
market value column in its spreadsheet and providing Mazars with only the offering plan prices.
NYSCEF Doc. No.946.
Although any liability arising out of the submission of the 2011 and 2012 SFCs is time barred; as
previously discussed, these submissions may be considered as evidence in support of OAG's request for
injunctive relief.
18 OAG plausibly asserts that this $ 540 million is also inflated; however, for purposes of this motion,
does not dispute the number, and argues that, even ifthe Court were to accept defendants number
as accurate, the 2015 SFC was still materially false, as itstated the value as nearly $ 200 million more than
the $540 million appraisal. NYSCEF Doc. No. 766 at n 7.
An email exchange dated August 4 , 2014 , between Allen Weisselberg and his son, Jack Weisselberg, a
Ladder Capital employee , discusses the 2015 $ 540 million Cushman & Wakefield appraisal . NYSCEF
Doc. No. 888. Notwithstanding direct knowledge of it, the 2015 SFC valued 40 Wall Street at nearly
$200 million more. NYSCEF . No. 773.
452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THE STATE OF NEWYORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page24 of 35

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEWYORK vs. TRUMP, DONALD J. ET AL
Motion Nos. 026 , 027, 028
24 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
Defendantsassertthat overvaluationsof two hundredmilliondollars are immaterial, as the

NYAGhasproducedno evidenceto suggest that LadderCapitalwould have been
uncomfortableallowingPresidentTrumpto guaranteethe 40 Wall StreetLoanifhisnet worth
was only $ 1.9 billion, as the NYAGcontends." NYSCEFDoc. No.835 at 48. They further
emphasizethat Ladder Capitalhas receivedin excess of$ 40 millionin interestand40 Wall
StreetLLChas neverdefaultedunderthe Loan. .
Defendants argument misses the mark . As has been explained to defendants many times , in
many legal proceedings , and in painstaking detail , where , as here, there is a claim based on
fraudulent activity [under Executive Law 63( 12)] , disgorgement may be available as an equitable
remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for
restitutionErnst & Young at 569 ( emphasis added ) . Accordingly , it is not significant that the
banks made money ( or did not lose money ) or that they would have done business with the
Trump Organization notwithstanding . The law is clear that the only requirements for liability to
attach under a standalone Executive Law 63( 12) cause of action are ( 1) a finding that the
were false and misleading ; and (2 ) that defendants repeatedly or persistently used the to
conduct business .
Accordingly , OAG has demonstrated liability for the false valuation of 40 Wall Street in the
2015 SFC
Mar- a - Lago
Donald Trump purchased Mar- a -Lago in 1985. In 1993, he sought , and obtained , permission
from the Town of Palm Beach to turn the property into a social club (NYSCEF Doc. No. 900) ,
and on August 10, 1993 , he entered into a Declaration of Use Agreement by which he agreed
the use ofLand shall be for a private social club and that [ a ny additional uses of the Land
shall be subject to approval by the applicable governmental authority including but not limited to
the Town Council of the Town , the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the Town , the
Architectural Review Commission of the Town , Palm Beach County , the State of Florida, the
United States Government , and/ or any agencies under the foregoing governmental authorities .
NYSCEF . No. 915 .
In 1995, DonaldTrump signed a Deed of Conservationand PreservationEasement inwhichhe

gave up his rightto use Mar- a -Lago for any purposeother than as a social club (the 1995
Deed ) NYSCEFDoc. No. 901. In 2002, DonaldTrump signed a DeedofDevelopment
Rights NYSCEFDoc. No. 902. As part of grantinga conversationeasementto the National
The defendant borrowers did not default on any loans ; but we only know that with hindsight . Markets
are volatile , and borrowers come in all shapes and sizes . The next borrower , or the one after that, might
default , and ifits SFCs are false , the lender might unfairly be left holding the bag. This will distort the
lending marketplace and deprive other potential borrowers of the opportunity to obtain loans and create
wealth .
The subjectloans madethe banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs cost the banks lots of money
Thelesscollateralfor a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principalof loan accounting is that as risk rises,
so do interestrates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowedthe lenders to make even more moneythan
theydid.
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page25 of 35
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP , DONALD J. ETAL
Motion Nos . 026, 027, 028
25 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
Trust for Historic Preservation, Donald Trump agreed that " Trump intend [s] to forever
extinguish [ his] right to develop or use the Property for any purpose other than club use (the
2002 Deed ) . The 2002 Deed also specifically " limits changes to the Property including ,
without limitation , the division or subdivision of the Property for any purpose , including use as
single family homes , the interior renovation of the mansion , which may be necessary and
desirable for the sale of the Property as a single family residential estate , the construction of new
buildings and the obstruction of open vistas ." Id. In exchange for granting the easement , Mar-a
Lago was taxed at a significantly lower rate (the club rate) than it otherwise would have been
(the private home rate) . NYSCEF Doc . No. 903.
From2011-2021 , the PalmBeachCounty Assessorappraisedthe marketvalue ofMar-a - Lagoat

between$ 18 millionand $27.6 million. NYSCEF No.905.
Notwithstanding, the SFCs values do not reflect these land use restrictions. Donald Trump's
for 2011-2021value Mar- a- Lago at between $426,529,614 million and $ 612,110,496, an
overvaluationof at least 2,300% , comparedto the assessor's appraisal. NYSCEF Doc. Nos.
769-779
Inan attempt to rebut the OAG's demonstration, defendants rely on the opinion affidavit of
Lawrence Moens, who they purport is the most accomplished and knowledgeable ultra-high net
worth real estate broker in Palm Beach, Florida. Moens claims that the SOFC were and are
appropriate and indeed conservative " NYSCEF Doc . No. 1292 at 35-36 ( emphasis added). The
Moens affidavit states in a conclusory fashion that because he believes this unique property
offers to an elite purchaser the unparalleled opportunity to own an exclusive and extensive
family compound in the most desirable sections of Palm Beach... the valuations in the SOFC
were reasonable and below my estimate for the market value of the property each year.
NYSCEF Doc. No. 1435. Moreover , Moens opines that " [ i] f Mar-A - Lago was available for sale,
am confident that in short order, I would be in a position to produce a ready, willing and able
buyer who would have interest in securing the property for their personal use as a residence, or
even, their own club." Id. at 29. Critically , Moens does not opine at what price he is
" confident he could find a buyer (although he opines separately , without relying on any
objective evidence, that he believes that as of 2023 the property is worth $ 1.51billion )
Itis well-settled that : " [w here the expert's ultimate assertions are speculative or unsupported by
any evidentiary foundation , however , the opinion should be given no probative force and is
insufficient to withstand summary judgment . Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d
542, 544 ( 2002) ; see also Gardner v Ethier, 173 AD2d 1002 , 1003-4 ( 3d Dept 1991) ( the expert
22
Atoralargument, his domainofexpertisewas enlargedto nationwidestatus.
23 Inhis sworn deposition, when asked " [ w ho were the dozen or so [ qualified] buyers that you were
referencingin your report, Lawrence Moensreplied: could dream up anyone from Elon Muskto Bill
Gates and everyone in between. Kings, emperors, heads of state. But with net worths in the multiple
billions. I don't know how manypeople in the world have a net worth of more than $ 10 billion, but I
think it's quite a number. There are a lot." NYSCEF Doc. No. 1428 at 184-185. Obviously, this Court
cannotconsideran " expert affidavit" that is basedon unexplainedand unsubstantiated dream[ s]
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATEOF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page26of35
GENERALOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALDJ. ET AL
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
26 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
affidavitis also inadmissiblebecauseit is conclusoryand the views are apparentlybased to a

greatextenton hearsay statementsfrom unspecifiedwitnesses as well as upon speculationson
the partofthe expert ) . Accordingly, defendants relianceon the Moens affidavitis
unpersuasiveandcertainly insufficientto rebut OAG's primaface case.
Defendants further imply that they may ignore the plain language of the 2002 Deed restrictions
because they would likely be able to use the Florida judicial system to get out of their contractual
requirements ; they further assert that because they may successfully breach their contract in the
future, they were not required to consider the restrictions of the 2002 Deed when valuing the
property NYSCEF Doc . 1292 at 48-51 . This argument is wholly without merit . At the time in
which the defendants submitted the SFCs , the restrictions were in effect, and any valuations
represented to third -parties must have incorporated those restrictions ; failure to do so is fraud.
Assets values that disregard applicable legal restrictions are by definition materially false and
misleading
Accordingly, OAG has demonstrated liability for the false valuation of Mar- a - Lago as appears in
the SFCs from 2014-2021.
Aberdeen
The Trump Organization owns a golf course located in Aberdeen , Scotland ( Aberdeen ) . The
value assigned to Aberdeen was comprised of two parts : a value for the golf course and a value
for the development of the non-golf course property , the latter of which is the focus here.
Developing any ofthe non-golf course property required that the local Scottish authorities
approve any proposed plans .
From 2011-2014, Donald Trump's SFC reported that he had received outline planning
permission [ from local Scottish authorities] in December 2008 for a residential village
consistingof 950 holiday homes and 500 single family residences and 36 golf villas. NYSCEF
Doc. Nos. 769-776.
The TrumpOrganizationhad outline planningpermission to build a total of 1,486 homes.

Notwithstanding
, the 2014-2018SFCsvaluationsof Aberdeenassumedthe Trump Organization
hadreceivedapprovalto build2,500 homes, despite neverhavingreceivedsuchapproval.
NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 772-776, 907.
Additionally , the approval of the 950 holiday homes and 36 golf villas came with severe
restrictions on their use: they could be used solely as rental properties and could be rented for no
more than 12 weeks in any calendar year . NYSCEF Doc . No. 908 at 13. The Trump
Organization submitted financial documentation to the local Scottish authorities representing that
these short-term rentals would not be profitable and therefore would not add any value to
Aberdeen. NYSCEF Doc . Nos. 909 at 36, 910 at 7. Consequently , the only profitable
development of Aberdeen would have been the 500 single family residences . In July 2017, non
party Ryden LLP, acting on behalf of the Trump Organization , prepared a development appraisal
for Aberdeen wherein it assessed the profit from developing 557 homes and estimated profits in
the range of 16,525,000- 18,546,000 . NYSCEF Doc . No. 1231 at 10.
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page27 of 35
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALDJ. ET AL
MotionNos. 026 , 027, 028
27 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
InMay 2018, the Trump Organizationapplied to the Aberdeen City Councilto reducethe scope
of the developmentprojectto 550 dwellings, consistingof 500 private residences, 50
leisure/ resortsunits, and zero holiday homes ( havingdeterminedthey were notprofitable) .
NYSCEFDoc. No.911. In September2019, the Aberdeen City Council approvedthe proposal
for a reductioninthe proposeddevelopment, but restrictedthe 50 leisure/ resortunits, as they had
the holidayhomes, to be occupiedon a holiday letting or fractional ownershipbasis only and
for no other purposes whatsoeverincludinguse as a permanentresidentialunit NYSCEF
Doc. No.907 at 7 .
Notwithstanding
, the 2019 SFC, finalized a monthafter the latestapproval, derived a value based
ontheassumptionthat 2,035 privateresidentialhomes could be developed. Adjustingthe values
to reflectthe permissible500 privateresidencesreduces the value ofthe Aberdeenundeveloped
property as reflected in the 2019 SFC by 164,196.704. NYSCEFDoc. No. 777 at 16, 789 at
Cells G561-619, 912.
Although defendants wholly fail to address Aberdeen in any of their three memos of law, in their
response to OAG's statement of material facts , they state that Defendants dispute the veracity of
the appraisal because President Trump , as a land developer , took optimistic views of potential
future value which is not contemplated in the appraisal , thereby undervaluing Trump Aberdeen .
NYSCEF . No. 1293 at 82-83 . For all the reasons discussed supra, this defense fails.
Accordingly, OAG has demonstrated liability for the false valuation of Aberdeen as appears in
the from 2014-2019
US
DonaldTrump owns or leases a number of golf clubs across the United States and abroadthat
areincludedas assets on his SFCs. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769-779. The value for these golfclubs
is provided in the aggregateinthe SFCs, although supporting accounting spreadsheets evidence
the breakdownof the values assigned to each club. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 781-791.
The Trump Brand Premium

The evidence indicates that for the years 2013-2020 , the SFCs relied on values that included a
15% or 30% premium based on the Trump brand" for the following seven golf clubs: Trump
National Golf Course ( TNGC ) Jupiter , TNGC LA, TNGC Colts Neck, TNGC Philadelphia,
TNGC DC, TNGC Charlotte , and TNGC Hudson Valley . NYSCEF Doc . Nos. 783-790 .
However, the SFCs for those years ( and, indeed, all the years before this Court ), also
contained express language stating: The goodwill attached to the Trump name has significant
value that has not been reflected in the preparation of this financial statement . NYSCEF Doc.
Nos. 769-779 ( emphasis added) . Accordingly , the SFCs " double dip," both purporting not to
include a brand premium while simultaneously including one of 15% or 30% .
In opposition, defendants submit the affidavit of Eli Bartov, an accounting professor at New
York University, who distinguishes between overall brand value and brand value ascribed to
individual golf courses . His point, ensconced in numerous lines of academic jargon, seems to be
that defendants said that they were eschewing the former and opting only for the latter.
NYSCEF Doc . No. 1378 at 14-15. This is a red herring and factually incorrect. The
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY

Page28of35
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALDJ. ET AL
Motion Nos. 026 , 027, 028
28 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
clearlystatethatthey do not includea brandvaluefor anyofthe propertiesincludedinthe SFCs;

indeed, the SFCsemphaticallydeclarethat [ t ] he goodwillattachedto the Trumpnamehas
significantfinancialvaluethat has notbeen reflectedin the preparationofthisfinancial
statement NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 769-779( emphasisadded) . PerhapsDonaldTrump couldhave
ascribeda brandvalue to golfcourses that he viewed as " special, but he was obligatedto
disclosethoseexceptionswhenhe representedthat the SFCsdid not reflect his brandvalue.
TNGC Briarcliffand TNGC LA
The valuationsofTNGC Briarcliffand TNGC LA were eachcomprisedofa value for the golf
course and a value for the undevelopedland. As the Trump Organizationwas considering
donatinga conservationeasementover both properties, they had both propertiesappraised.
An April2014 appraisalvalued the golfclub portionofTNGC Briarcliffat $ 16,500,000; later

that same year, DonaldTrump valued the golfclub portionof TNGC Briarcliffat $ 73,430,217,
aninflationofmore than 300% , in his SFC. NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 923 at 147; 785 at Row 257
A 2015 appraisalvaluedthe golfclub portionofTNGC LA at $ 16,000,000as of December26,
2014 the 2015 SFC valuedthe golfclubportionof TNGC LA at $ 56,615,895, aninflationof
morethan200% . NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 924 at 151; 785 at Row 386.
Inan attemptto rebut this strong showingof fraud, defendants argue that they were not obligated
to usemarketvalue, but, instead, were permittedto usethe " fixed assets approachto valuation,
pursuantto which defendantsmay value a propertyby aggregatingthe moneyspent to acquire
andmaintaina property. NYSCEFDoc. No. 1292. They furtherrely on the Bartov affidavit,
whichstates, inwholly conclusoryfashionthat: [ t] he assertionthat Usingfixed assets approach
does notpresentthe golf clubsat their estimatedcurrentvaluebecausethe approachignores
marketconditionsandthe behaviorofinformedbuyersand sellers is unsubstantiatedandfalse.
NYSCEF . No. 1378 at 29.
Bartov is incorrect . Each of the corresponding SFCs include representations that " [ a]ssets are
stated at their estimated current values NYSCEF Doc . Nos. 769-779.24 Accordingly , itis
false and misleading to use a fixed-assets evaluation, which is completely different. The price
for which you purchase property is not necessarily the price for which you can sell it. The latter,
not the former, matters to lenders who want adequate collateral.
The Membership Liabilities
As part of the purchase of several of the golf club properties , Donald Trump agreed to assume
the obligation to pay back refundable non- interest- bearing long-term membership deposits .
However , notwithstanding that these liabilities must be satisfied in the future , the SFCs from
2012-2021 value them at $ 0 . NYSCEF Doc . Nos . 769-779 . This is false ; they are a liability in
the millions of dollars .
24 Intheir responseto OAG's statement of material facts, defendants concede that GAAP defines
Estimated Current Value as the amount at which the item could be exchanged between a buyer and
seller, eachof whom is well informed and willing, and neither of whom is compelled to buy or sell.
NYSCEF No.1293 at 17.
452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page 29 of 35
MotionNos. 026, 027, 028
29 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
NYSCEF DOC . NO. 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF : 09/26/2023
However, the SFCs all state: The fact that Mr. Trump willhave the use of these funds for that
periodwithoutcost and that the source of repaymentwill most likely be a replacement
membershiphas led him to value this liability at zero. See e.g., NYCSCEFDoc. No.772.
Althoughitwas false to reportthe membership liabilities as $0 , it was not, under the

circumstances, misleading, as the SFCs state that the reason for so doing. Accordingly, OAG
cannot prevailon liability as a resultof the failure to report the membershipliabilities.
Yet, as discussedsupra, OAG has demonstrated liability for submitting fraudulent SFCs in 2014
2020that falsely value the aforementionedUS GolfClubs based on undisclosedbrandpremiums
and failure to report current values.
VornadoPartnershipProperties
DonaldTrump has a 30% limited partnership interest with non-party Vornado Realty Trust in
entitiesthat own office buildings in New York City ( at 1290 Avenue of the Americas, hereinafter
" 1290 AOA ) and San Francisco at 555 California Street.
Cash/LiquidClassification
DonaldTrump's30% limitedpartnershipstake does not permit him to use or withdrawfunds

heldbythe partnerships. NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 916, 917. Notwithstanding , DonaldTrump and
histrusteesclassifiedhis 30% interestinthe Vornadopartnershipas a liquid/ cashasseton his
fortheyears2013-2021. NYSCEFDoc. No.771-779. This was eventhoughit is
undisputed by defendantsthat DonaldTrumpdoesnot have the rightto useor withdraw
[ these] funds. NYSCEFDoc. No. 1293 at ¶387-388.
Defendantsassertthat [ e ven ifthe cash held in the partnership was misclassifiedand should
have beenreported elsewhereon the as an asset ( e.g., inthe value of the partnership
interest) , it would not have inflatedthe total value of cash or President Trump's net worth
reportedon the SOFCs." NYSCEF Doc No. 1292 at 39.
This argument does not hold any water . Put simply , it was false and misleading for defendants
to indicate that it had access to between $ 14,221,800 and $ 93,126,589 in liquid assets ,
sometimes nearly a third of the total cash it claimed , when in fact those assets were completely
illiquid . NYSCEF Doc . No. 1293 403 .
The Appraisals
Cushman & Wakefield appraised the value of 1290 AOA at $2 billion as of November 1 , 2012 ,
and $ 2.3 billion as of November 1, 2016. NYSCEF Doc. No. 919 at 5-6.
However, Donald Trump's 2014 SFC calculated his 30% share based on a purported value of
$3,078,338,462; his 2015 SFC was based on a purported value of $2,985,819,936 ; and his 2016
SFC was basedon a purported value of $3,055,000,000. NYSCEF Doc . Nos. 784 at Rows 709
715, 785 at Rows 748-755, 785 at Rows 779-784. This resulted in overvaluations of Donald
Trump's 30% interest in 1290 AOA of between $205-$233 million dollars for those years.
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs.TRUMP, DONALD J. ET AL
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
30 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
CBRE appraised 1290 AOA and determined its value at $2 billion as of October 7 , 2021.
NYSCEF Doc. No. 947. Nonetheless, the 2021 SFC was calculated based upon a purported
value of $2,574,813,800, an overvaluation of Donald Trump's 30% share by $ 172 million
dollars . NYSCEF Doc. No. 791 at Row 918.
The instant motions do not task this Court with determining which appraisals are the most
accurate , which would present issues of fact.25 Rather , time and time again , the Court is not
comparing one appraisal to another ; it is comparing an independent professional appraisal to a
pie- in- the - sky dream of concocted potential.
Accordingly, OAG has demonstrated liability for submitting fraudulent SFCs overvaluing
Donald Trump's interest in the Vornado partnership in 2014-2016 and 2021.
Licensing Deals
Each ofDonald Trump's SFCs from 2011-2021 has an asset category entitled Real Estate
Licensing Deals, which the SFC represents is value derived from associations with others for
the purpose ofdeveloping and managing properties and the cash flow that is expected to be
derived from these associations as their potential is realized NYSCEF Doc . Nos . 769-779 .
The further state that i n preparing [ these] assessment [ s ] , Mr. Trump and his
management considered only situations which have evolved to the point where signed
arrangements with the other parties exist and fees and other compensation which he will earn are
reasonably quantifiable ." Id.
Despite this express language , the SFCs from 2014-2018 and 2020-2021 include valuations of
intra- organization deals , all between entities under the Trump Organization umbrella , in this
category of assets . NYSCEF Doc . Nos . 1014, 1018, 1019, 1021, 1023 , 1024, 1062, 1063, 1064.
It was flatly false and misleading to include values of deals between Trump Organization entities
while expressly representing in the SFCs that such assets included only valuations derived from
association with others ." Improperly including these intra- organization deals resulted in an
overvaluation of up to $ 224 million in 2014 , $ 110 million in 2015 , $ 120 million in 2016 , $ 113
million in 2017 , $ 115 million in 2018 , $ 97 million in 2020 , and $ 106 million in 2021. Id.
has demonstratedliability for the false and misleadingvaluationof intra- company

licensingdeals on the SFCs from 2014-2018and 2020-2021 .
The Other Loans
has established that defendants submitted false SFCs after July 13, 2014, pursuant to their
other loancommitments . Defendants submitted SFCs to Deutsche Bank as part of their
contractual obligations arising out of three different loans : (1) a Chicago Loan, undertaken by
401North Wabash Venture LLC; (2) a Doral Loan, undertaken by Trump Endeavor LLC; and
(3) an Old Post Office Loan, undertaken by Trump Old Post Office LLC. Defendants certified
the accuracy of these SFCs to Deutsche Bank for the years 2014-2019 and 202126 as part oftheir
25 Nor is this Court asked to determine Donald Trump's total wealth .
The gap for 2020 may have been due to the COVID- 19 pandemic.
452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THESTATEOF NEWYORK, BY LETITIAJAMES,ATTORNEY Page 31 of 35

GENERAL OF THESTATEOF NEWYORKvs. TRUMP, DONALDJ. ETAL
MotionNos. 026, 027, 028
31 of 35
INDEX NO. 452564/2022
contractual obligations . NYSCEF Doc . Nos. 1097 , 1098 , 1099 , 1100, 1102 , 1104, 1106, 1124,
1126, 1155 , 1156, 1157
The IndividualDefendants
has demonstrated liability on behalf of all the named individual defendants : ( 1) Donald
Trump , as each and every SFC was issued on behalf of Donald J. Trump ; ( 2 ) Donald Trump ,
Jr., who , along with Allen Weisselberg , certified the accuracy of the SFCs for 2016-2020 , and
who singlehandedly certified the accuracy of the 2021 SFC (NYSCEF Docs. No. 808-813) ; ( 3)
Eric Trump , who is the listed source for the Seven Springs valuation in 2014,27 and who signed
several guarantor compliance certificates in 2020 and 2021 for Donald J. Trump ( NYSCEF Doc .
No. 802 ) (4 ) Allen Weisselberg , who certified the accuracy of the SFCs from 2014-2021
( NYSCEF Doc. Nos . 806-812 ) ; ( 5) and Jeffrey McConney , who led the process of preparing all
the since the 1990s28 ( NYSCEF Doc . No. 822 at 52-68) .
TheEntityDefendants
Itis settled law that " [ a] parent corporation will not be held liable for the torts or obligations of a
subsidiary unless it can be shown that the parent exercised complete dominion and control over
the subsidiary Potash v Port Auth of New York & New Jersey , 279 AD2d 562, 562 (2d Dept
2001) ( emphasis added ) . Here, it is undisputed that Donald Trump , through one corporate form
oranother, exercised complete control over the umbrella of entities operating in furtherance of,
or on behalf of the Trump Organization .
Defendantsdo not dispute that DJT HoldingsLLC and DJTHoldingsManagingMemberLLC

are entitiesthat sit at the top ofthe Trump Organization'sorganizationalchart andtogetherown
manyofthe Trump- affiliatedentitiesthat comprise the TrumpOrganization. DJTHoldings
ManagingMemberLLC owns 100% ofthe Trump Organizationand DJT HoldingsLLC owns
100% ofthe Trump OrganizationLLC. NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 4 , 819 at .
Accordingly , OAG has established liability on behalf of all the named entity defendants : ( 1) The
Trump Organization Inc., the Trump Organization LLC, DJT Holdings LLC, and DJT
Holdings Managing Member LLC, as each participated in the preparation , submission and
certification ofthe SFCs after July 13 , 2014 through the acts of the individual defendants as
described supra ( 2) the DJT Revocable Trust , as both Donald Trump Jr. and Allen
Weisselberg certified the accuracy of the 2016-2019 SFCs in their capacities as Trustee , the
Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust dated April 7, 2014 , as amended ( NYSCEF Doc . No. 808) ;
(3) Trump Endeavor LLC, which was the borrower on the Doral Loan, for which SFCs were
submitted after July 13, 2014 ; (4) 401 North Wabash Venture LLC, which was the borrower
on a loan for Trump Chicago , under which SFCs were required to be ( and were) submitted
27 EricTrump also reaffirmedthe SFCs accuracy on July 9 , 2019. NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 782 at Row679,
783 atRows638-40, 784 at Row 660, 1183.
Jeffrey McConney acknowledged his personal role in preparing supporting data for Donald Trump's
beginning in 2011, testifying that: I assemble the documentation and that he would send both
supporting data spreadsheets and backup documentation to the accountants . He further conceded that the
supporting data spreadsheets were referred to as Jeff's supporting data or " supporting schedule.
NYSCEF Doc. No. 822 at 40, 67-68, 212, 294.
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES , ATTORNEY Page 32 of 35
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
32 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
afterJuly 13, 2014; ( 5) Trump Old PostOfficeLLC, as it was the borroweronthe Old Post
Office loan, underwhich SFCs were requiredto be ( and were) submittedafter July 13, 2014;
andSevenSpringsLLC, the borrowingentity ( as describedsupra) under whichSFCswere
requiredto be (and were) submittedafter July 13, 2014.
InjunctiveRelief
has prevailedon liabilityon its first cause ofactionpursuantto ExecutiveLaw 63( 12) as
againstalldefendants: DonaldJ. Trump; DonaldTrump, Jr.; Eric Trump; AllenWeisselberg;
JeffreyMcConney; the DJT RevocableTrust; the Trump OrganizationInc; the Trump
OrganizationLLC; DJT HoldingsLLC; DJT HoldingsManagingMemberLLC Trump
Endeavor12 LLC; 401 NorthWabashVentureLLC; Trump Old PostOffice LLC; 40 Wall
StreetLLC and Seven SpringsLLC.
Ifliabilityis establishedunderExecutiveLaw 63( 12) , the statute itselfprovidesthatthe

attorneygeneralmay obtain an order enjoiningthe continuanceof such businessactivityor of
any fraudulentor illegalacts and, in an appropriatecase, cancellingany certificatefiled under
andby virtue ofthe provisionsof section one hundredthirty ofthe general business law
he Attorney General may obtain permanent injunctive relief under Executive Law
63( 12) upon a showing of a reasonable likelihood of a continuing violation based upon the
totality ofthe circumstances . " People v Greenberg , 27 NY3d at 496-97 ( further stating [ t his is
not a run of the mill action for an injunction , but rather one authorized by remedial legislation ,
brought by the Attorney - General on behalf of the People ofthe State and for the purposes of
preventing fraud and defeating exploitation ) ( internal citations omitted ) .
Having found , at the commencement of the action , that OAG had preliminarily demonstrated
defendants propensity to engage in persistent fraud this Court appointed the Hon. Barbara S.
Jones ( ret.) as an independent monitor to ensure there is no further fraud or illegality that
violates 63( 12) pending the final disposition of this action ." NYSCEF Doc . No. 194. On
August 3 , 2023 , Judge Jones reported as follows :
ince my appointment I have reviewed material financial and

accounting information submitted by the Trump Organization . As
part of my review, I have made preliminary observations regarding
certain current financial disclosures with respect to the Trump
Organization's reporting of financial information. Specifically , I
have observed that information regarding certain material
liabilities provided to lenders such as intercompany loans
between or among Trust entities and Donald J. Trump , certain of
the Trust's contingent liabilities, as well as refundable golf club
membership deposits has been incomplete . The Trust also has
not consistently provided all required annual and quarterly
certifications attesting to the accuracy of certain financial
statements .
GENERALOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. TRUMP, DONALDJ.ET AL
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
33 of 35
INDEX NO. 452564/2022
Inaddition, annual audited financial statements for certain entities ,

prepared by an external accounting firm, list depreciation
expenses . However , interim internally prepared financial
statements provided to third parties for these same entities
inconsistently report depreciation expenses.
NYSCEF Doc. No. 647. Even with a preliminary injunction in place, and with an independent
monitor overseeing their compliance , defendants have continued to disseminate false and
misleading information while conducting business. This ongoing flouting of this Court's prior
order, combined with the persistent nature of the false SFCs year after year, have demonstrated
the necessity of canceling the certificates filed under GBL 130 , as the statute provides . People
Northern Leasing , 70 Misc 3d 256, 279-80 (Sup Ct, NY County 2020) (denying a trial on the
petition and ordering the LLC respondents to dissolve upon a finding of persistent fraud under
Executive Law 63 ( 12)) .
Having prevailed on liability on a standalone Executive Law 63( 12) cause ofaction, the
Attorney General is entitled to the first two prayers for relief sought in her complaint : ( 1)
canceling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of New York General
Business Law 130 for all the entity defendants found liable, as well as any other entity
controlled or beneficially owned by the individual defendants found liable herein, which and
who participated in or benefitted from the foregoing fraudulent schemes ; and ( 2) appointing an
independent monitor to oversee compliance , financial reporting, valuations , and disclosures to
lenders, insurers , and tax authorities at the Trump Organization . NYSCEF Doc . No. 1 at 213.
Remaining
Issuesto be Determinedat Trial
Anythingpresentedin the parties movingpapers that this Court has notruleduponinthis

Decisionand Order, includingdeterminationson liabilityfor the secondthroughseventhcauses
ofaction, the amountof disgorgementofprofitsto whichOAGis entitled, and determinationson
the thirdthroughninthprayersfor reliefsoughtby OAGin its complaint, presentsdisputed
issuesoffactthat shall proceedto trial.
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
34 of 35
INDEX NO . 452564/2022
Forthe reasons stated herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants motion for summaryjudgment is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for sanctions is granted in part, to the extent of sanctioning
Michael Madaio , Esq . ( Habba Madaio & Associates , LLP ) , Clifford S. Robert , Esq ( Robert &
Robert PLLC) , Michael Farina Esq ( Robert & Robert PLLC) , Christopher M. Kise, Esq.,
( admitted pro hac vice) ( Continental PLLC) , and Armen Morian ( Morian Law PLLC) in the
amount of $ 7,500 each, to be paid to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection of the State of New
York no later than 30 days from the date of this Decision and Order ; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on its first cause of action is
granted in part, to the extent of finding defendants Donald J. Trump , Donald Trump , Jr., Eric
Trump Allen Weisselberg , Jeffrey McConney , the DJT Revocable Trust , the Trump
Organization Inc, the Trump Organization LLC, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing
Member LLC, Trump Endeavor 12 LLC , 401 North Wabash Venture LLC, Trump Old Post
Office LLC, 40 Wall Street LLC, and Seven Springs LLC to be liable as a matter of law for
persistent violations of Executive Law 63 ( 12) ; and it is further
ORDEREDthat any certificatesfiled underand by virtue of GBL 130by any ofthe entity
defendantsor by any other entity controlledor beneficiallyowned by DonaldJ. Trump, Donald
Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, and Jeffrey McConneyare canceled; and it is further
ORDERED that within 10 days of the date of this order, the parties are directed to recommend
the names ofno more than three potential independentreceivers to manage the dissolutionof the
canceled LLCs; and it is further
ORDERED that the Hon . Barbara S. Jones ( ret.) shall continue to serve as an independent
monitor ofthe Trump Organization until further Court order ; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
9/26/2023
DATE ARTHUR F. ENGORON, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON- FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED DENIED GRANTEDINPART OTHER
APPLICATION
: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECKIF APPROPRIATE
: INCLUDES TRANSFER / REASSIGN FIDUCIARY
APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY Page35 of 35
Motion Nos. 026, 027, 028
35 of 35

Nys Superior Nyag V Trump Et Al Finding of Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nys Superior Nyag V Trump Et Al Finding of Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nys Superior Nyag V Trump Et Al Finding of Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDEX NO .

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF : 09/26/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

PRESENT: HON ARTHUR F. ENGORON PART 37

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA

DONALD J. TRUMP , DONALD TRUMP JR, ERIC TRUMP

452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THE STATEOF NEWYORK, BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page1 of35

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 09/26/2023

were read on this motion for PARTIALSUMMARY

were read on this motion for SUMMARYJUDGMENT

werereadon this motionfor SANCTIONS

Uponthe foregoingdocuments, it is hereby ordered that defendants motionfor summary

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF : 09/26/2023

Executive Law 63( 12)

Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal

452564/2022 PEOPLEOF THESTATEOF NEW YORK, BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page 3 of 35

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2023

DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

Arguments Defendants Raise Again

Standing and Capacity to Sue

Asthis Courtandothershavemade abundantlyclear, [ i t is not disputedthat the Attorney

ParensPatriae and Consumer Ambit

452564/2022 PEOPLEOFTHE STATEOF NEWYORK BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF : 09/26/2023

Defendants rehashedargumentthat OAG'scomplaintmustbe dismissedbecauseit is not

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF : 09/26/2023

Non- Party Disclaimers

Scienter and Participation Requirements

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1531 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 09/26/2023

However, that is completely irrelevant. As the Ernst & Young Courtnoted:

here, as here, there is a claimbased on fraudulentactivity,

Sanctionable Conduct for Frivolous Motion Practice

Apparently , the point was not received .

452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page 8 of 35

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2023

Pursuantto New York AdministrativeCode 130-1.1, [ t he Court, as appropriate, may make

For purposes ofthis Part, conduct is frivolous if:

( 1) it is completelywithoutmeritin law andcannotbe supported

(2 ) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of

( 3 ) itassertsmaterialfactualstatementsthat are false.

22 NYCRR 130-1.1( c) . Defendants inscrutable persistence in re- presentingthese arguments

Whenconsideringimposingsanctions" [a mongthe factors [ the court] is directed to consideris

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF : 09/26/2023

Exacerbating defendants obstreperous conduct is their continued reliance on bogus arguments ,

That is a fantasyworld, not the realworld.

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF : 09/26/2023

Arguments Defendants Raise for the First Time

452564/2022 PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF NEWYORK, BY LETITIAJAMES, ATTORNEY Page11 of35

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF : 09/26/2023

The Worthless Clause

Assets are stated at their estimated current values and liabilities at

NYSCEF Doc . Nos . 769 at 7 ; 770 at 7 ; 771 at 7 ; 772 at 7 ; 773 at 7 .

NYSCEF DOC . NO . 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF : 09/26/2023

Doesthis refreshyour recollectionofthe processwhereby

DJT: Yeah, I think generally. It's interesting. I would say as

So am I understanding that you didn't particularly care

I didn't get involved in it very much . I felt it was a

452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY