State attorney Kevin Wallace concluded his direct examination of the New York attorney general's second and final rebuttal witness amid frequent objections by defense lawyers.

Lewis attempted to explain how Donald Trump's statements of financial condition failed to disclose that he did not conduct a discounted cash flow analysis, contributing to the over-valuation of some of his assets.

"There is no mention of discounting or future value in the disclosure," Lewis said, disagreeing with testimony from defense expert Jason Flemmons -- as well as former Mazars USA accountant Donald Bender, who testified as a state witness.

“Are you impeaching your own witness?” Engoron asked state attorneys regarding whether Bender’s testimony should no longer be considered credible.

"We didn't feel the need to," Wallace responded.

Lewis also suggested that Trump's external accountants at Mazars had less of an obligation to highlight issues that Flemmons suggested, since they were only conducting a compilation report rather than a more intensive audit. While Mazars had an obligation to flag obvious issues, they were not responsible for ensuring Trump's statements were compliant with generally accepted accounting principles, he testified.

"If while doing the compilation ... something comes to the attention of the accounts that could be a GAAP departure, they have a responsibility to bring that issue to the client," Lewis said regarding generally accepted accounting principles.

During the hour-long direct examination, defense lawyers objected at least 14 times, successfully interrupting the line of questions.

"I am lost," Engoron asked at one point. "Can you put this together?"

The parade of objections visibly irritating Wallace, who voiced his displeasure.

"Petulant outbursts don't really play well in the courtroom," quipped Trump lawyer Chris Kise in response.

In a post on social media, Donald Trump dismissed the idea that his civil fraud trial might result in a settlement.

"HE RULED THAT I WAS A FRAUD BEFORE HE EVEN SAW THE CASE, THEN TRIED TO GET ME TO SETTLE. A TOTAL HIT JOB," Trump wrote about Judge Arthur Engoron.

Engoron has not addressed the possibility in court, but sounded sentimental this morning as he began what is likely to be the final day of the trial.

"In a strange way, I am going to miss this trial," Engoron said. "It has been an experience."

A day after Donald Trump's lawyers rested their defense case that featured numerous expert witnesses, New York Attorney General Letitia James is set to call her own accounting expert as part of the state's rebuttal case.

Cornell professor Eric Lewis was qualified as an accounting expert over the objections of Trump's attorneys yesterday, and his direct examination is scheduled to begin this morning.

Lewis will likely address some of the findings reached by the defense's accounting experts, Jason Flemmons and Eli Bartov, whose testimony that Trump had adequate disclaimers on his financial statements is at the center of the defense's case.

Trump's lawyer Chris Kise aggressively criticized Lewis' qualifications during a lengthy voir dire session yesterday, but Judge Arthur Engoron remained convinced about Lewis' ability to testify as an accounting expert.

Donald Trump's attorney Chris Kise unloaded on the second rebuttal witness called by New York Attorney General Letitia James after the defense had rested its case.

"The reason they brought this witness in here is, there is no one in the actual profession who would sustain the opinions they are asking of the witness," Kise argued about Cornell professor of practice Eric Lewis, who Judge Engoron qualified as an expert in accounting.

Kise exasperatedly questioned Lewis during a prolonged voir dire about his qualifications, criticizing his experience while knocking Engoron in the process.

"You are a professor of practice with no practice in the field of accounting," Kise told Lewis. "I probably have more experience in the practice of accounting than this witness."

Engoron nevertheless deemed Lewis an expert in accounting over Kise's objections that his expertise was "too broad" for the circumstances.

"I am not sure if anything will change a decision in this courtroom," Kise argued.

Engoron appeared worn out by Kise's lengthy attacks.

"Stop making speeches every time we have to discuss something," Engoron said for the umpteenth time.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day, with the state's rebuttal case set to resume on Wednesday.

Deutsche Bank's $378 million in loans to the Trump Organization was a "good credit decision," the bank's former risk management executive told the court at the end of more than a day of testimony.

"I think we did a reasonably thorough analysis of the information," former Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh testified under cross-examination by the defense.

An internal Deutsche Bank group evaluated Trump's financial information, personally visited Trump Organization offices to review bank and brokerage records, and conducted some appraisals of property explicitly used as collateral, according to Haigh.

Though the value that Deutsche Bank determined for the properties often differed by hundreds of millions of dollars compared to the Trump-provided value, the entities continued to have what internal bank documents described as a "long and satisfactory relationship."

"Using a Deutsche Bank-adjusted value for the assets, the net worth still exceeded $2.5 billion," Haigh said, referring to Trump's net worth as it related to a loan covenant.

When Trump decided to run for president and won the election, Deutsche Bank was supportive of the business relationship, though management was careful to monitor their particularly high-profile client, according to internal bank documents presented at trial.

"Note that the relationship continues to be monitored at the highest levels of senior management within the firm and any issues arising from the Guarantor's status as President of the United States are immediately addressed, taken to the appropriate Reputation Risk committee, and discussed with appropriate legal counsel," a credit report said.

When asked directly if the decision to work with Trump was a "good credit decision" by defense attorney Clifford Robert, Haigh responded, "I generally agree with that."

During redirect questioning, state attorney Kevin Wallace stopped short of directly asking Haigh if he would have still done business with Trump had he known about the inflated value of Trump's assets. But he asked Haigh whether Trump's financial information could have been incomplete.

"You have no way of knowing if there was information that wasn't provided to you?" Wallace asked.

"That is correct," Haigh said, marking the end of his questioning.