{"id":180237,"date":"2025-08-27T17:13:27","date_gmt":"2025-08-27T17:13:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/180237\/"},"modified":"2025-08-27T17:13:27","modified_gmt":"2025-08-27T17:13:27","slug":"why-trump-is-appealing-the-new-york-civil-fraud-ruling-after-claiming-total-victory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/180237\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Trump is appealing the New York civil fraud ruling after claiming \u2018TOTAL VICTORY\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

When New York\u2019s mid-level appeals court threw out the nearly half-billion-dollar penalty against Donald Trump<\/a> last week, New York Attorney General Letitia James<\/a> quickly vowed to appeal. But now, the president is seeking to appeal the civil fraud ruling despite having claimed \u201cTOTAL VICTORY\u201d last week.<\/p>\n

That Trump is appealing might seem curious at first glance, especially if one was the under the impression that the ruling was, as the president claimed, a complete win for him. But as I explained<\/a> when the ruling came out, it was a messy one that made both James\u2019 and Trump\u2019s celebrations awkward.<\/p>\n

To be sure, Trump notched a serious win in wiping out the massive monetary penalty<\/a>. But the bottom-line result, amid a tangle of three separate opinions spanning 323 pages<\/a>, led James to craft her own victory statement<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In it, she embraced the Appellate Division\u2019s ruling for affirming that Trump, his company and his sons Eric and Don Jr. \u201care liable for fraud,\u201d and for upholding limits on the Trumps\u2019 ability to do business in the state. Though James didn\u2019t directly mention the massive money loss, her statement ended by saying her office \u201cwill seek appeal to the Court of Appeals and continue to protect the rights and interests of New Yorkers.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeals is New York\u2019s highest state court. <\/p>\n

As James touted, there are aspects of the ruling that Trump and his civil co-defendants did lose. Their notice of appeal,<\/a> filed Tuesday, makes clear that that\u2019s what they\u2019re challenging: the Appellate Division\u2019s order to the extent that it \u201caffirms in part\u201d James\u2019 trial-court win<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Appellate Division justices themselves acknowledged the possibility that their jumble of opinions <\/strong>wouldn\u2019t be the last word. Their three separate decisions each had different rationales, none of them garnering a true majority on the five-justice panel. Two of the justices wrote that they only reluctantly joined two others for the purposes of technically rendering a decision, to allow \u201cthe option of further review of this matter by the Court of Appeals.\u201d<\/p>\n

So it won\u2019t be surprising if the Court of Appeals endeavors to issue a clearer decision in the matter, which carries implications for business dealings throughout the state, not limited to this Trump case. Whatever that high court does, both sides have reason to fight for a different outcome than the one that\u2019s currently on the table. <\/p>\n

Subscribe to the <\/strong>Deadline: Legal Newsletter<\/strong><\/a> for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration\u2019s legal cases.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"When New York\u2019s mid-level appeals court threw out the nearly half-billion-dollar penalty against Donald Trump last week, New…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":180238,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5122],"tags":[5229,405,403,5226,5225,5228,5227,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-180237","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-new-york","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-new-york","10":"tag-new-york-city","11":"tag-newyork","12":"tag-newyorkcity","13":"tag-ny","14":"tag-nyc","15":"tag-united-states","16":"tag-united-states-of-america","17":"tag-unitedstates","18":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","19":"tag-us","20":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115101853669772699","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180237\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/180238"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}