What has the First Department ruled so far on Trump’s notice of appeal and related motions?

1. What the First Department has said: affirmance of liability and injunctive relief

The First Department issued three opinions in the Attorney General’s civil fraud case that, according to the New York Attorney General’s Office, affirmed the trial court’s finding that Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and two of his children are liable for fraud and upheld the injunctive relief the trial court imposed limiting their ability to do business in New York ^[1]. The AG framed the appellate rulings as reinforcing the trial court’s remedies and said the decision demonstrates the case “has merit,” signaling the appellate court left intact the core substantive and equitable rulings her office had won ^[1].

2. How the Attorney General and defendants have framed next steps

Following the First Department opinions, the Attorney General’s statement made clear her office will seek review in the state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, effectively treating the First Department decision as an interlocutory but substantial defeat for the defendants and a step toward further appellate proceedings ^[1]. The available reporting emphasizes the AG’s intention to continue the litigation upward rather than detailing any settled cross-motions, stays, or specific orders governing enforcement while appeals proceed ^[1].

3. What the record does not show about the notice of appeal and related procedural motions

The supplied sources do not provide a public, source-cited description of the First Department’s rulings on a discrete “notice of appeal” filing by Trump or his attorneys, nor do they enumerate the disposition of related procedural motions such as motions to stay enforcement, motions for leave to appeal, or papers about bond or supersedeas. Reporting from the Attorney General’s office recounts the appellate outcome in substantive terms but does not supply docket entries or minute orders addressing those specific procedural items ^[1]. Therefore, any assertion about how the First Department handled a particular notice of appeal or ancillary motions would exceed what the provided reporting documents.

4. Competing interpretations and implicit agendas in available coverage

The Attorney General’s press release frames the First Department rulings as vindication and frames continued appeal as necessary to “protect the rights and interests of New Yorkers,” an advocacy posture consistent with her office’s role as plaintiff ^[1]. Absent in the provided reporting is a matching detailed public statement from Trump’s legal team about their posture on immediate enforcement, stays, or tactical appeals at the First Department level; that absence leaves readers unable to evaluate whether the defense will prioritize rapid emergency relief, a bond to suspend injunctive impacts, or a full merits appeal to the Court of Appeals ^[1]. The limited public record in these sources suggests both sides are preparing the next appellate chapter while the factual and procedural minutiae—exact notices, dates, and any discrete First Department orders on motions—remain underreported in the provided materials.

Conclusion: where things stand and what’s missing

In sum, the First Department has issued opinions that affirm the trial court’s fraud findings and injunctive relief against Trump and his companies, and the Attorney General plans to take the case to the New York Court of Appeals; the supplied sources do not detail the First Department’s treatment of a specific notice of appeal or attendant procedural motions, so the precise procedural posture on stays, bonds, or interlocutory motion rulings at the First Department level cannot be confirmed from the available reporting ^[1]. For a complete procedural timetable and the disposition of any discrete notices or motions, court docket entries or direct First Department orders would need to be consulted—documents not provided in the sources here.