What did appellate courts say about Engoron’s factual findings and the $354–454 million penalties on appeal?

1. The underlying trial ruling Engoron wrote and the penalties he ordered

Engoron’s bench verdict concluded that Trump, his company and several executives submitted inflated asset valuations to obtain favorable loan and insurance terms and assessed disgorgement of roughly $354 million plus about $100 million in prejudgment interest for a total in the $454 million range; he also barred Trump from serving as an officer or director of New York entities for three years and expanded compliance monitoring ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

2. How the appeals court treated the trial record during initial oral arguments

When the appeal first reached the Appellate Division in late September 2024, the five‑judge panel interrogated both sides vigorously, signaling skepticism about parts of the attorney general’s case — particularly whether the fraud statute could be used to “upset a private business transaction,” whether subjective valuations caused cognizable harm, and whether the $454 million figure was justifiably tied to any legally cognizable injury ^{[1] [2] [8]}.

3. Legal and factual issues the appellate judges flagged

Appellate questions focused less on the theatrical aspects of trial testimony and more on statutory limits and remedies: judges probed whether Engoron properly tied overstated valuations to concrete victims or statutory harms, whether the attorney general had the authority to seek the sweeping remedies she pursued, and whether the magnitude of disgorgement and interest was legally proportional to the wrongdoing found ^{[1] [2] [9]}.

4. The appeals panel’s ultimate decision on Engoron’s monetary penalty

On appeal the mid‑level court ultimately concluded that the penalty Engoron imposed was “excessive” and dismissed the disgorgement award, effectively voiding the nine‑figure monetary judgment as to the fine itself while the record shows the panel was split on aspects of the fraud finding and left open routes for further appeal to New York’s highest court ^{[3] [4] [9]}.

5. How the appeals court’s ruling balanced factual findings against remedial limits

Although the appellate panel rejected the disgorgement as imposed, reporting indicates the judges did not universally reject every factual determination from Engoron — the court’s concern centered on remedy and statutory authority rather than a blanket repudiation of every trial finding; the panel’s reasoning emphasized proportionality and the limits of the attorney general’s power to impose business‑upsetting remedies in state court ^{[3] [2] [1]}.

6. Dissenting viewpoints, political context, and what the papers show about motives

Coverage shows competing narratives: the attorney general framed the trial as correcting “shocking” frauds that victimized lenders and insurers ^[10], while defense lawyers and some appellate questions framed parts of the case as overreach into subjective valuations and private business disputes — and defense messaging stressed political motive given the high profile of the defendant ^{[2] [9]}. Reporting also highlights practical stakes that shaped judicial concern, such as the disruptive potential of dissolving business certificates and the difficulty of securing a bond to stay enforcement ^{[7] [6] [11]}.

7. Practical consequences and remaining legal paths

After the appeals panel scrapped the disgorgement, the decision left procedural doors open: the attorney general could seek further review in the Court of Appeals and the question of other non‑monetary remedies (compliance monitors, corporate bans) remained subject to separate legal argument; contemporaneous reporting also documented practical pressure points — accruing interest, bond filings, and enforcement motions — that shaped how quickly and urgently the parties litigated appeals ^{[6] [12] [13]}.