New York Attorney General Opposes Trump Judge Recusal Motion, Attorney Subpoena

Trump attorneys are seeking to subpoena a real estate lawyer who allegedly advised Justice Engoron before he issued a $454 million fine.

Judge Arthur Engoron presides over former President Donald Trump's fraud trial in N.Y. Supreme Court, in New York City on Oct. 3, 2023. Dave Sanders/Pool Photo via AP

The New York attorney general’s office, which sued former President Donald Trump in 2022 for fraud in overvaluing his net worth and won its civil case earlier this year, is arguing that the judge who ruled against the former president should not recuse himself from the case.

“The purported factual basis for their extraordinary request is pure sophistry,” state attorneys argued in a new filing on June 26, faulting the defense for requesting to replace the judge who presided over the case and 40-day trial with another judge who would be new to the evidentiary record.

New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron fined former President Trump $454 million when he entered judgment in February.

That ruling included other penalties, but the judgment was stayed while former President Trump appeals the case.

After the trial, a real estate lawyer told an NBC reporter that he had advised Justice Engoron before the final judgment was entered.

“I don’t think this judge is applying the law properly and I’m a big fan of this judge,” real estate attorney Adam Leitman Bailey told the reporter.

“I actually had the ability to speak to him [late January] ... because I really wanted him to get it right.”

Mr. Bailey said the judge had “a lot of questions” and Mr. Bailey “gave him everything I knew.”

He said he did not mention the former president by name.

A court spokesperson has denied that anything improper occurred.

“No ex parte conversation concerning this matter occurred between Justice Engoron and Mr. Bailey or any other person,” court spokesperson Al Baker said at the time.

“The decision Justice Engoron issued Feb. 16 was his alone, was deeply considered, and was wholly uninfluenced by this individual.”

Mr. Bailey was not involved in former President Trump’s case and had been quoted by multiple media as an expert voice throughout the trial.

He said he had told the judge that the fraud statute used in the high-profile case was not meant to shut down a company, especially when there were no clear victims.

Prior to the trial, Justice Engoron had ordered the cancellation of Trump Organization business certificates, a move that the industry regarded as a corporate “death penalty.”

The order—which had not been requested by the state attorneys—was so unusual that lawyers asked how it would be executed, and the judge said he had to think about it.

The Associated Press analyzed 150 cases using the fraud statute and found that no defendant had ever faced penalties as severe as former President Trump and that his case was especially unusual because there were no victims.

An appeals court shortly halted the order, and the judge vacated it when he entered final judgment in February.

Bailey Responds

Attorneys for former President Trump have moved to recuse the judge, arguing that the Bailey interview indicates that Justice Engoron spoke with outside parties about the case.

In doing so, they have also filed a motion to subpoena Mr. Bailey, whose attorney responded with a motion to quash or modify the subpoena.

He argued that the subpoena was far too broad, requesting “any” of his communications with the judge or court, including documents.

Mr. Bailey has litigated real estate cases in New York’s mid-level trial court and said what the defendants have subpoenaed falls outside the scope of the recusal motion.

“Any demand for documents or information that is not relevant to defendants’ motion in the above-captioned action seeking recusal ... should not be construed ‘as necessary to bring within the scope of these requests,’” the court filing reads.

The New York attorney general’s office opposes the subpoena entirely, arguing that no hearing has been called.

It argued that the defendants have offered only the Bailey interview as evidence of alleged impropriety, which the court has already denied was an ex parte conversation.

Defense attorneys also argued that there is an alleged investigation by the court into Mr. Bailey and Justice Engoron’s exchange, which has created an appearance of an impropriety issue.

The court was not immediately available to comment.