This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/nyregion/ivanka-trump-fraud-case-ny.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Court Throws Out New York’s Civil Case Against Ivanka Trump Court Throws Out New York’s Civil Case Against Ivanka Trump
(about 5 hours later)
A New York appeals court on Tuesday dismissed the New York attorney general’s civil case against Donald J. Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and potentially limited the case against the former president and his family business, which is set to go to trial in October. A New York appeals court on Tuesday dismissed the New York attorney general’s civil case against Ivanka Trump and potentially limited the case against Donald J. Trump and his business, which is set to go to trial in October.
Last year, the 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. Last year, the attorney general, Letitia James, filed a lawsuit against Mr. Trump, the Trump Organization 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 Appellate 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 for filing the case against her. Ms. Trump was no longer a part of the Trump Organization after 2016, the ruling noted.On Tuesday, the Appellate 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 for filing the case against her. Ms. Trump was no longer a part of the Trump Organization after 2016, the ruling noted.
The appeals court effectively left it to the State 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. The appeals court rejected an effort by the other defendants to have the case dismissed. But the ruling effectively left it to the State Supreme Court judge presiding over the case, Arthur F. Engoron, to determine whether some claims against the remaining defendants were too old.
Ms. James’s case rests on the company’s annual financial statements, which she says contained inflated numbers. The company continued to use those statements until at least 2021, she said. And Mr. Trump’s name was on the documents, even after he ascended to the White House. In January, Justice Engoron denied Mr. Trump’s motion to dismiss the case — saying that some arguments the former president’s lawyers made were “borderline frivolous” — but Mr. Trump appealed, resulting in the decision Tuesday. Based on the appeals court’s ruling, Justice Engoron may have to limit claims related to two of the bigger transactions cited in the complaint: a hotel deal in Chicago and the purchase of a golf resort in Florida.
In January, the State Supreme Court judge, Arthur F. Engoron, denied Mr. Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, saying that some arguments that the former president’s lawyers made were “borderline frivolous.” But Mr. Trump appealed, resulting in the decision on Tuesday. The ruling was a rare legal victory that could strengthen Mr. Trump’s hand heading into the civil trial scheduled for Oct. 2 — and as he seeks the presidency again. Mr. Trump and his family business have endured a punishing series of losses in civil and criminal cases, and the appeals court’s decision might embolden him in any potential settlement talks.
Based on the appeals court’s ruling, it’s possible that Justice Engoron may have to limit claims related to two of the bigger transactions cited in the complaint: a hotel deal in Chicago and the purchase of a golf resort in Florida.
The ruling represented a rare legal victory that could strengthen Mr. Trump’s hand heading into the civil trial scheduled for Oct. 2 — and as he seeks the presidency again. Mr. Trump and his family business had endured a punishing series of losses in civil and criminal cases, and the appeals court’s decision might embolden him in any potential settlement talks.
A lawyer for Mr. Trump, Christopher M. Kise, said in a statement that the decision represented “the first step toward ending a case that should have never been filed.”A lawyer for Mr. Trump, Christopher M. Kise, said in a statement that the decision represented “the first step toward ending a case that should have never been filed.”
“The correct application of the law will now limit appropriately the previously unlimited reach of the attorney general,” he said. “We remain confident that once all the real facts are known, there will be no doubt President Trump has built an extraordinarily successful business empire.”“The correct application of the law will now limit appropriately the previously unlimited reach of the attorney general,” he said. “We remain confident that once all the real facts are known, there will be no doubt President Trump has built an extraordinarily successful business empire.”
A spokeswoman for Ms. James, Delaney Kempner, said that the office had sued Mr. Trump and his company “after uncovering extensive financial fraud that continues to this day.”A spokeswoman for Ms. James, Delaney Kempner, said that the office had sued Mr. Trump and his company “after uncovering extensive financial fraud that continues to this day.”
“There is a mountain of evidence that shows Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization falsely and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to financial institutions for significant economic gain,” she said. “Those facts haven’t changed.”“There is a mountain of evidence that shows Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization falsely and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to financial institutions for significant economic gain,” she said. “Those facts haven’t changed.”
Ms. James’s lawsuit was filed last year on Sept. 21 against Mr. Trump, his business, Ms. Trump and his two adult sons. Despite Tuesday’s favorable ruling, Mr. Trump has a number of legal woes. He was indicted by a federal grand jury this month and accused of mishandling sensitive documents that he removed from the White House after his loss in the 2020 election and of obstructing the government when it attempted to recover them. He also faces criminal charges in Manhattan related to hush-money payments made to a porn star before the 2016 election. He is the first former American president to be indicted, and he could face years in prison.
It accuses the former president of lying to lenders and insurers about the value of his assets, and says that he violated state criminal laws and, “plausibly,” federal laws. The case lays out detailed accusations of how Mr. Trump’s annual financial statements overstated the worth 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. Ms. James does not have the authority to bring criminal charges against Mr. Trump, but her civil case represents a significant monetary threat.
Her case rests on Mr. Trump’s annual financial statements, which she says contained inflated numbers. The company continued to use those until at least 2021, she said. And Mr. Trump’s name was on the documents, even after he ascended to the White House.
Ms. James’s lawsuit, filed on Sept. 21, accuses the former president of using the statements to deceive lenders and insurers, and says that he violated state criminal laws and, “plausibly,” federal laws. The case lays out detailed accusations about how the statements overstated the worth of nearly all of Mr. Trump’s 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 suit seeks $250 million that the attorney general contends the Trumps made through deception, and asks a judge to essentially bar the former president from doing business in New York if he is found liable at trial. Justice Engoron has already appointed a monitor to oversee the Trump Organization’s business transactions.The suit seeks $250 million that the attorney general contends the Trumps made through deception, and asks a judge to essentially bar the former president from doing business in New York if he is found liable at trial. Justice Engoron has already appointed a monitor to oversee the Trump Organization’s business transactions.
Although Mr. Trump invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination in an interview last year, he answered Ms. James’s questions in a deposition in April.Although Mr. Trump invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination in an interview last year, he answered Ms. James’s questions in a deposition in April.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers could argue at trial that the financial statements included disclaimers, and that the values were unaudited estimates. They could also argue that setting property values is subjective, more of an art than a science, and that the lenders and insurers were hardly victims. Mr. Trump’s lawyers could argue at trial that the financial statements included disclaimers, and that the values were unaudited estimates. They could also argue that setting property values is subjective, more an art than a science, and that the lenders and insurers were hardly victims.
“The transactions at the center of this case were wildly profitable for the banks and for the Trump entities,” Mr. Kise said in a statement issued after his deposition in April. Mr. Kise contended that once the facts were revealed, “everyone will scoff at the notion any fraud took place.” “The transactions at the center of this case were wildly profitable for the banks and for the Trump entities,” Mr. Kise said in a statement after the April deposition. Mr. Kise contended that once the facts were revealed, “everyone will scoff at the notion any fraud took place.”