What precinct-level filings and notices have been entered in Westchester County and New York City related to the Trump judgment?

1. Westchester registration: what was filed and when

The AG’s office formally “registered” the state court judgment in Westchester County on March 6, 2024, according to county clerk databases and multiple news reports, a ministerial filing that notifies the local clerk and enables local enforcement mechanisms ^[1][5][4]. Local press and the county clerk described the registration as effectively placing a lien on properties in Westchester tied to the defendants in the case, a step that allows James to pursue local collection measures against assets in the county ^[3][2].

2. Which properties and parties are implicated at the precinct/county level

Coverage specifically ties the Westchester registration to Trump-owned holdings in that county — notably the Seven Springs estate and Trump National Golf Club Westchester — and reports list the judgment registered against Donald Trump, the Trump Organization and two of his adult children in county records, making those local properties the immediate targets for lien and potential seizure procedures ^[4][3][2]. Reporting notes that the March filings did not enumerate every asset but signaled the AG’s intent and procedural ability to secure liens on the high-value Westchester real estate if the appeal bond is not posted ^[4][3].

3. New York City filings — what the record shows (and what it does not)

Reporting makes clear that the judgment was issued in New York County (Manhattan), so the state would not need a separate Westchester filing to pursue Manhattan collections, and sources say the AG registered the judgment in Westchester as a strategic, localized enforcement step rather than because filings in New York City were required; however, the available coverage does not describe contemporaneous, precinct-level lien registrations or new enforcement notices filed in New York City’s clerk records tied to this judgment ^[4][5]. Absent direct reporting of NYC filings in the provided sources, it cannot be asserted from these materials that new Manhattan-specific liens or precinct-level seizure notices were entered at the same time — the sources only document the Westchester registration and note the legal sufficiency of the original New York County judgment ^[4][2].

4. Legal effect, bond deadline and competing claims about practicality

The registration in Westchester is preparatory: it allows the AG to more easily place liens and begin long, statutory collection steps if the defendant does not secure an appeal bond — Trump’s team was given a deadline to post a bond equal to 120% of the judgment to stay enforcement, a sum reported as roughly $557 million and characterized by his lawyers as “practically impossible” to secure ^[6][4]. The AG’s office signaled readiness to begin seizing assets if the bond was not posted, but multiple outlets underscore that registration alone does not mean immediate seizure; collection typically follows additional legal steps and can be contested in court ^[3][2].

5. Records access, transparency and broader context

County clerk systems provide public access routes to view judgments and recordings, and Westchester’s clerk notes how to request certified copies or search online, which is how journalists and parties confirmed the March registration ^[7][1]. Observers and opponents frame the filings through different lenses — the AG portrays them as routine enforcement of a judicial judgment, while Trump’s lawyers stress practical and legal hurdles to any immediate asset takings; federal probes and litigation shadowing the AG’s work have also surfaced in reporting, suggesting political and institutional scrutiny around the broader enforcement campaign ^[8][9]. Given the sources provided, there is clear documentation of the Westchester registration and its lien effect, while simultaneous precinct- or Manhattan-level filings are not documented in these materials.