In a major legal victory for former President Donald Trump and his family, a New York appeals court judge intervened to halt the dissolution process of Trump’s corporations, a contentious issue at the heart of an ongoing civil trial. The trial, presided over by Manhattan Judge Arthur Engoron, had raised concerns among Trump’s legal team regarding the potential sale of properties held by non-party business entities.
Judge Engoron had previously ordered Trump to propose potential receivers by October 26, initiating the dissolution process. This decision, perceived as excessively broad by Trump’s lawyers, could have put LLCs holding private homes of Trump and other defendants at risk of being sold. Eric Trump, the former president’s son, praised the appeals court’s decision, viewing it as a necessary intervention to protect the rights of non-party business entities.
Eric Trump argued that the judge’s order sought to cancel their New York business certificates without giving these entities, employing nearly 1,000 New Yorkers, their due process. He emphasized that the judge’s actions were a violation of their fundamental Constitutional rights, particularly their right to Due Process.
More Read
Throughout the trial, Judge Engoron demonstrated a strict approach, issuing a gag order in response to Trump’s social media post criticizing court staff and even threatening to jail the former president. Alina Habba, one of Trump’s lawyers, shed light on Trump’s strategy, indicating that he planned to participate in the trial selectively. The Trump Organization, a focal point of the case, was highlighted by Habba, who claimed that Trump’s financial worth exceeded the reported figures significantly.
Habba accused New York’s Democratic Attorney General Letitia James of pursuing Trump for political gain, suggesting that the legal actions had political motivations. The trial is expected to continue, with Trump providing testimony at the end of the month. There is also a possibility of Trump’s sons, Eric and Donald Jr., testifying in the case.
Habba raised doubts about the validity of the claims, pointing out the absence of an injured party and questioning the judge’s decision to allow claims dating back to 2011, which she believed exceeded the statute of limitations. Trump’s legal team has consistently objected to these claims, arguing for the strict adherence to the statute of limitations.
The developments in this trial have brought a significant twist to the legal battle, emphasizing the complexity and intensity surrounding the dissolution of Trump’s corporations and the potential political undertones of the case.
