A panel of five appellate judges has affirmed a judge's Oct. 6 decision that paused the dissolution of the Trump Organization.

Judge Peter Moulton issued a ruling during the first week of the trial pausing the immediate cancellation of Donald Trump's business certificates, as ordered by Judge Arthur Engoron in his partial summary judgment ruling on the eve of the trial.

Trump's attorneys argued in favor of the stay of enforcement action until the end of the trial, and the New York attorney general supported their argument.

Today's ruling formally pushes a decision on the fate of the Trump Organization into the new year, when Engoron issues his final ruling in the case.

Donald Trump is back in court as a spectator, marking the first time the former president has attended the proceeding in over a month.

Trump entered the courtroom alongside his legal spokesperson Alina Habba and his son Eric Trump, who canceled his testimony that was initially scheduled for yesterday. Notably absent from the courtroom is New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Previewing today's testimony from New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov, Trump said on his way into the courtroom that he has "one of the greatest experts in the country" taking the stand today.

"We did nothing wrong. There were no victims. The bank loves us," Trump said.

Donald Trump is set to return to his civil fraud trial as a spectator today, marking the first time the former president has attended the proceeding in over a month.

Trump has attended eight of the trial's 41 days, including when he testified as the last witness in the state's case on Nov. 6. He is scheduled to return to the stand as the final witness in the defense's case on Monday.

This morning, Trump's lawyers will call New York University professor Eli Bartov as their second-to-last witness.

Trump attorney Chris Kise cited Bartov's testimony in his opening statement as vital to proving that Trump fully complied with all accounting rules and regulations when he submitted his statements of financial condition, which underpin the attorney general's allegations in the case.

"The statements are ... the beginning, not the end, of a highly complex valuation process," Kise said.

Judge Arthur Engoron's attorney argues in a new court filing that the willingness of Donald Trump's followers "to engage in violence to show their support" for Trump justifies the limited gag order in the former president's civil fraud trial.

Trump filed an Article 78 proceeding against Engoron earlier this month to remove the gag orders the judge imposed prohibiting him from commenting on the judge's staff, but a panel of judges vacated a temporary stay of the gag orders last week.

"It is undisputed that Mr. Trump has an inordinate ability to draw attention, fervor, and animosity to those he singles out for attention. Whether he seeks it or not, some of Mr. Trump's followers are willing to engage in violence to show their support," said Engoron's attorney Michael Suidzinski, an assistant deputy counsel with the New York State Office of Court Administration.

Engoron's attorney questioned Trump's need to speak about the judge's staff during the trial or his campaign, adding that the gag order still permits him to criticize Engoron, the attorney general, the case itself, witnesses, and the entire judicial process.

"It is unclear, however, how his ability to talk about Justice Engoron's court staff is necessary for his campaign when this country faces a number of issues more worthy of debate," Suidzinski wrote.

"Given the real and demonstrated likelihood of harm that could come to Justice Engoron's court staff if the gag orders were annulled, Justice Engoron's legitimate and justifiable interest in preventing such harm greatly outweighs the de minimis interference to Mr. Trump's rights," Suidzinski wrote.

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.