Court dismisses New York civil suit against Ivanka Trump
A New York appeals court on Tuesday dismissed the New York attorney general’s civil case against Ivanka Trump, the daughter of Donald J. Trump, and may limit the case against the former president and his family firm, which filed for bankruptcy in October. the judge must appear.
Last year, Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against Mr. Trump, his company and three of his adult children, including Ms. Trump, accusing them of fraudulently overvaluing the former president’s assets by billions of dollars to receive favorable loans.
On Tuesday, the appeals division of the state Supreme Court in Manhattan said in a unanimous ruling that Ms. James’s claims against Ms. Trump should be dismissed because the attorney general missed a deadline to file the case against her. Ms. Trump was no longer part of the Trump Organization after 2016, the ruling said.
The appeals court essentially left it to the Supreme Court judge presiding over the case to determine whether the claims against the other defendants — including Mr. Trump, his company and his two adult sons — should be limited.
Ms. James’s case rests on the company’s financial statements, which she says contained overstated figures. The company continued to use those statements at least through 2021, she said. And Mr. Trump’s name was on the documents even after he ascended to the White House.
In January, state Supreme Court Justice Arthur F. Engoron denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, saying some arguments made by the former president’s attorneys were “borderline frivolous.” But Mr. Trump appealed, resulting in the decision Tuesday.
Based on the appeals court ruling, Judge Engoron may have to limit claims related to two of the larger transactions cited in the complaint: a Chicago hotel deal and the purchase of a Florida golf resort.
The ruling represented a rare legal victory that could strengthen Mr Trump’s hand as he heads to the civil trial scheduled for October 2 — and as he seeks the presidency again. Mr. Trump and his family business had suffered a tough series of losses in civil and criminal cases, and the appeals court decision could give him courage in potential settlement talks.
An attorney for Mr. Trump, Christopher M. Kise, said in a statement that the decision was “the first step toward ending a case that should never have been brought.”
“The proper application of the law will now appropriately limit the previously unrestricted reach of the Attorney General,” he said. “We remain convinced that once all the real facts are known, there will be no doubt that President Trump has built an extraordinarily successful business empire.”
A spokeswoman for Ms James, Delaney Kempner, said the office had charged Mr Trump and his company “after discovering extensive financial fraud that continues to this day”.
“There is a mountain of evidence showing that Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization have incorrectly and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to financial institutions for significant economic gain,” she said. “Those facts have not changed.”
Ms. James’ lawsuit was filed last year on Sept. 21 against Mr. Trump, his company, Ms. Trump, and his two adult sons.
It accuses the former president of lying to lenders and insurers about the value of his assets, and says he violated state criminal and, “plausible,” federal laws. The case detailed allegations of how Mr. Trump’s financial statements overstated the value of nearly all of his best-known properties — from Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street in Manhattan to Mar-a-Lago in Florida — to get better terms from the lenders and insurers.
The lawsuit demands $250 million that the attorney general claims the Trumps earned through deception, and asks a judge to essentially bar the former president from doing business in New York if he is held liable at trial. is being asked. Judge Engoron has already appointed an observer to oversee the Trump Organization’s business dealings.
Although Trump invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination in an interview last year, he answered Ms. James’ questions in a statement in April.
Trump’s lawyers could argue at trial that the financial statements contained disclaimers and that the values were unaudited estimates. They could also argue that valuing real estate is subjective, more of an art than a science, and that the lenders and insurers were hardly victims.
“The transactions at the center of this case were hugely profitable for the banks and for the Trump entities,” Kise said in a statement following his statement in April. Mr Kise argued that once the facts came to light, “everyone will scoff at the idea that fraud has taken place”.