What assets of the Trump Organization are currently subject to court judgments or liens in New York?
Executive summary
New York Attorney General Letitia James has entered civil judgments tied to her $454–$464 million fraud ruling against Donald Trump and affiliated entities in counties where Trump properties sit, and those filings — notably in Westchester and New York City — are the procedural precursor to placing liens, bank levies or pursuing foreclosures on Trump Organization assets [1] [2] [3]. Collection has been paused or constrained by appeals-court orders and a reduced bond the former president posted as a condition to stay enforcement, but the judgments themselves are on the public record and targeted at specific county jurisdictions where Trump properties are located [4] [5].
1. Judgments filed in Westchester: Seven Springs and adjacent properties
The New York Attorney General’s office filed judgments in Westchester County on March 6, a clear signal that the state was preparing to target Trump’s Seven Springs estate and golf course north of Manhattan as potential sources to satisfy the judgment; entering those judgments is the first legal step that enables lien filings, levies or foreclosure motions in that county [1] [3]. The filings do not immediately transfer title or seize property, but they create a public record that the OAG can use to press for enforcement actions if appellate stays lapse or bond conditions are not met [1] [3].
2. Judgments entered in New York City: Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street and Manhattan assets
County-level filings already exist in New York City — where Trump’s marquee assets such as Trump Tower and the leasehold at 40 Wall Street sit — meaning those properties are within the geographic sweep of enforcement the AG can pursue through liens or levies if collection proceeds [2] [5]. Legal analysts and the AG’s public statements have specifically cited 40 Wall Street as a property of interest, and the OAG has made clear it will use standard judgment-enforcement tools (liens, bank levies, garnishments) against defendants and assets in court jurisdictions where judgments were entered [6] [7].
3. The legal mechanics: judgments enable liens but seizure is complex and contested
Filing a judgment is a procedural prerequisite to enforcement — it allows the AG to place liens on property, levy bank accounts or seek foreclosure — but actually seizing and selling commercial real estate owned through layered LLCs and leaseholds is legally and economically complicated, often requiring additional motions and extended litigation before a forced sale would occur [3] [7]. Experts quoted in reporting stress that many Trump-branded assets are encumbered by lenders or structured so Trump is not always the direct owner on paper, which can limit immediate executability of a judgment against certain properties and make seizure a protracted process [7] [8].
4. Temporary stays, bonds and how they affect current enforcement
An appeals court temporarily stayed active collection by conditioning a pause on the posting of a bond; Trump’s side initially argued it could not obtain a bond covering the full judgment and that sureties wouldn’t accept real estate as collateral, prompting an eventual reduced bond requirement of $175 million that halted immediate seizure while appeal proceeds [7] [4] [5]. That bond — and the appeals court’s order — means that although judgments and county filings exist and permit liens or levies in theory, active enforcement against specific properties has been largely suspended while appellate procedures and bond conditions remain in effect [4] [5].
5. Competing narratives and the limits of current public reporting
The Attorney General frames the filings as preparatory and necessary to ensure remedies if the judgment survives appeal, while Trump’s lawyers characterize attempts to force property transfers or to require full-judgment bonds as unconstitutional and impractical, noting surety-market refusals to underwrite such large real-estate-collateralized bonds [9] [10] [3]. Public reporting provides evidence of judgments entered in Westchester and New York City and cites specific targets like Seven Springs, 40 Wall Street and Trump Tower as within the OAG’s enforcement ambitions, but the sources also make clear that actual liens, foreclosures or seizures are contingent on further legal steps, the resolution of appeals, and the practical problems of enforcing judgments against complex ownership structures [1] [2] [7].