Did the New York Court of Appeals overturn, affirm, or vacate any Trump-related convictions in 2024 or 2025?

1. Why the question matters and what the record shows now

The central factual question—whether the New York Court of Appeals took final action on Trump-related convictions in 2024 or 2025—turns on whether any appellate decision from that court is recorded in the supplied sources. The existing record documents the Manhattan criminal trial that produced a jury verdict finding Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in May 2024, followed by sentencing that resulted in an unconditional discharge, meaning no jail time or fine at that sentencing stage ^{[2] [1]}. Subsequent activity in 2025 reflects active appellate litigation, including arguments invoking presidential immunity and allegations of judicial bias, but the supplied sources explicitly state that no decision from the New York Court of Appeals was reported on those criminal convictions through the dates in these documents ^{[3] [4]}.

2. What prosecutors and defense are arguing on appeal—and where those arguments were filed

Defense filings in 2025 press a constellation of claims: that the trial was “fatally marred” by admission of evidence protected by presidential immunity, by improper reliance on campaign finance theory, and by a trial judge’s alleged conflict of interest due to political donations and family financial ties, seeking reversal or dismissal of the conviction ^{[5] [3]}. The appeals were actively routed through the Appellate Division, First Department, with filings noted in late October 2025 challenging both evidentiary rulings and the judge’s impartiality; the Manhattan DA declined to comment in the materials supplied ^{[3] [4]}. Those filings are contemporaneous with wider legal cross-currents—most prominently the Supreme Court’s July 2024 presidential-immunity decision invoked by defense counsel as a basis to vacate or reverse ^{[4] [5]}.

3. What appellate and state-court actions actually occurred in 2024–2025

The supplied materials document several distinct threads of state-court action: the criminal conviction and sentencing in the Manhattan case (May 2024), appellate briefing and filings through 2025 challenging that conviction, and an independent civil fraud litigation in which a court upheld liability but voided a $354.8 million penalty as excessive in April 2025—showing a separation between criminal verdicts and civil remedies even within New York courts ^{[2] [6]}. Nothing in these materials shows the New York Court of Appeals issuing a ruling that overturned, affirmed, or vacated the Manhattan criminal conviction in either 2024 or 2025; instead, the record reflects ongoing appeals below the Court of Appeals level and active litigation posture ^{[3] [7]}.

4. How different sources frame the stakes—and where agendas are visible

Pro-defense filings and press descriptions emphasize claims of political motivation, judicial bias, and constitutional immunity, which frame appellate briefs as not merely procedural but as challenges implicating separation-of-powers precedents and the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity ruling ^{[3] [5]}. Coverage of the civil fraud decision highlights the state’s interest in corporate accountability while noting the penalty reduction, which can be read as a mixed outcome for state enforcement ^[6]. These differing framings reflect clear institutional agendas: the defense seeks to recast facts as legal error and constitutional question, while prosecutors and the Attorney General’s office pursue accountability through both criminal and civil tracks; the supplied documents show those disputes in active litigation rather than final appellate closure ^{[4] [6]}.

5. Bottom line for the original claim and what to watch next

Based solely on the provided sources, the accurate statement is that the New York Court of Appeals had not overturned, affirmed, or vacated any Trump-related criminal convictions in 2024 or 2025; the Manhattan conviction from May 2024 was appealed and heavily litigated through 2025, but no Court of Appeals decision disposing of those convictions appears in these materials ^{[1] [3]}. The immediate items to watch in the recorded timeline are filings before the Appellate Division and any subsequent allowance or decision by the New York Court of Appeals, as well as follow-on moves in the civil fraud litigation that produced the penalty reduction—each could change the legal posture and produce the kinds of final appellate rulings the initial question asks about ^{[4] [6]}.