What are the specific deadlines and bond conditions in Trump’s New York civil fraud appeal and who are the possible underwriters?

1. The bond amount, the stay, and the immediate deadline

The appeals court trimmed the bond that would otherwise have been roughly $464 million down to $175 million to secure a longer stay of enforcement while an appeal proceeds, and contemporaneously paused collection for an initial 10-day period tied to that reduction ^{[1] [2]}; days after the bond was posted, New York’s attorney general filed papers giving Trump or the underwriter 10 days to produce information proving the bond’s sufficiency, a demand described by multiple outlets as a requirement to show financial soundness and collateralization ^{[4] [3] [5]}.

2. What “justify” means in practice — bond conditions the state is pressing

State filings make clear that “justifying” an appeal bond typically entails showing the underwriter’s financial ability to pay the full amount if the appeal fails and disclosing any collateral pledged to secure the bond; New York’s lawyers invoked prior rulings requiring identifiable collateral and asked for documents that would let the court and the AG vet whether a non‑traditional or “non‑admitted” carrier can cover a $175 million exposure ^{[4] [3] [6]}.

3. Who underwrote the $175 million bond and why that triggered scrutiny

The bond posted was underwritten by Knight Specialty Insurance Company, a Los Angeles-based firm identified in court filings and reporting as the underwriter for the $175 million instrument; the AG flagged Knight as a “non‑admitted carrier” in New York, which prompted the demand for the 10‑day justification and a scheduled hearing to examine whether Knight’s coverage and any collateral authenticate the bond’s protective effect for the state ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Other potential and prior underwriters, and the market context

Reporting notes that Trump sought bonds through numerous surety markets and that several large carriers reportedly declined before Knight agreed to underwrite this particular bond; by contrast, Chubb — a major insurer that previously furnished a separate $91.6 million bond for an unrelated E. Jean Carroll appeal — was mentioned as an example of a traditional underwriter that was available in prior matters but apparently did not underwrite the $175 million bond here ^{[4] [1] [7]}. Coverage by a major admitted carrier like Chubb would typically face less procedural challenge than a non‑admitted specialty company, which helps explain the AG’s scrutiny of Knight ^[4].

5. Who decides and what’s next in the short term

Judge Arthur Engoron, who entered the underlying judgment, retains authority to accept or reject the bond as sufficient under state practice and has a role in any final determination about collateral or enforcement, while the appellate panel’s temporary stay and the AG’s 10‑day demand set a tight timeline: the underwriter or Trump’s counsel must respond to the state’s objections within the 10‑day window and the court set a hearing for April 22 to resolve questions about the bond’s adequacy ^{[4] [3] [8]}. Reporting does not provide the full evidentiary record of the underwriter’s books or the specific collateral pledged, so public reporting cannot confirm whether the 10‑day submission ultimately satisfied the court absent later filings ^{[4] [5]}.

6. Stakes and implicit agendas

The AG’s aggressive demand for documentation reflects both a legal interest in securing collectible remedies if the judgment stands and a political sensitivity about allowing a high‑profile defendant to use less‑regulated insurance arrangements to forestall collection; Trump’s team framed the inquiry as a publicity gambit by the AG, while the AG framed it as routine vetting to protect taxpayers and creditors — both narratives are visible in filings and public statements reported by news outlets ^{[5] [3]}.