Trump attorney wants to propose a 'counter-judgment' in $355M civil fraud case: court docs

[onenote]

19. This isn't about whether Trump was deprived of the right to speak.

The issue raised by Trump's attorney has nothing to do with what went on at the trial. It relates to post-verdict procedure in New York governing the entry of the judgement of the court. In some instances, the deciding judge will conclude his decision with a directive to the parties to submit or settle a draft "judgment" implementing the court's decision. In such cases, the draft judgment has to be served by the winning party on the losing party and the losing party can offer a counter-proposal. The courts have indicated that this procedure makes sense for complicated verdicts whereas a simple procedure where the clerk is directed to enter judgment applies in other cases.

In this case, Judge Engoron did not direct the judgment to be submitted or settled by the parties. Rather, he simply directed the Clerk to enter judgment. Trump's attorney apparently -- at least this is what it seems like to me -- is arguing that because the NY Court of Appeals has stated that the use of the submit or settle procedure is "appropriate" where the verdict is complicated, the Judge's order should be read as including that directive, or maybe they're suggesting without actually saying it that the judge erred by not specifically stating that directive. However, as best I can tell, the decision relied on by Trump's attorney doesn't say that a submit or settle directive is mandatory in any particular case, but rather that it might be appropriate. Thus Engoron's direction to the clerk to enter judgment should end the discussion. The one complicating factor is that the AG went ahead and submitted the judgment even though the court didn't direct her to do so. I'm not familiar enough with NY Civil Procedure to know whether that was necessary or appropriate or whether it somehow triggers the service and counter-proposal requirements applicable to a judge's order to settle the judgment.

In this context, it is not a directive to "settle the case" as that term is commonly understood. It is to agree on the wording of the judgment based on the Court's order. While this case may seem complex, the judge's order is pretty clear and straightforward which is why, I suspect, Engoron simply directed the clerk to enter judgment based on the decision.

For anyone curious about this, here's a link to the decision that Trump's attorney relies on. I don't think it says what he's hoping it says. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914825fadd7b04934494a85