Judge Arthur Engoron did not immediately rule on the defense's motion for a directed verdict that would end the trial early.

Instead, the judge simply said the arguments were being "taken under advisement."

Wrapping up his argument for a directed verdict, defense attorney Chris Kise channeled some of the rhetoric of his client, praising Donald Trump for helping the community and "reshaping the skyline of New York."

"What building has the attorney general built in this community?" Kise asked.

State attorney Kevin Wallace, arguing against the defense's motion for a directed verdict to end the trial early, reiterated that the state's case relies on documents that they say incriminate Donald Trump and his adult sons.

"This is a documents case," Wallace said. "Each of the three defendants signed documents saying they were responsible for the fair presentation of the statements."

While the defendants all testified that they relied on accountants, Wallace said by way of analogy that it's like the defense saying that using an accountant absolves an individual of filing false tax returns.

"I am liable for that fraudulence," Wallace said. "I am not relieved of my responsibility because I handed off to an accountant."

Clifford Robert, a lawyer for Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., argued that his clients were caught in a political "fight between the attorney general and their father" and should be cleared from the fraud case, as part of the defense's motion for a directed verdict to end the trial

"The evidence is clear that my clients had no real involvement in the preparation of the statement of financial condition," Robert said in reference to the allegedly fraudulent documents that are at the center of the New York attorney general's case.

To demonstrate his point, Robert highlighted testimony from six witnesses who attested that Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. were not involved in the preparation of their father's financial statements.

Trump attorney Chris Kise, arguing for a directed verdict to end the trial, said that the state relied on the testimony of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen in an attempt to show that Trump engaged in a conspiracy to defraud lenders -- but that Cohen's inconsistent testimony doomed their effort.

Cohen testified that Trump spoke "like a mob boss" when he indirectly instructed Cohen and then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg to inflate his financial statements, without explicitly saying so.

"This is not a man who speaks in code," Kise said, adding that "you will know what it is he wants" within minutes of talking to Trump.

Judge Arthur Engoron responded to Kise by mentioning what Trump called his "perfect call" in 2019 in with Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelenskiy, which became the basis for Trump's first impeachment, as an example of Trump speaking in code.

Kise said that the only other testimony that suggested there was a conspiracy to defraud lenders came from a junior Trump Organization executive who claimed Allen Weisselberg told him, "Mr. Trump wanted his net worth on the statement of financial condition to go up." Trump's lawyers have argued his testimony should be inadmissible as hearsay.

"Even if it came in, that statement alone is not proof of any agreement," Kise said.

Judge Engoron has set a date of Jan. 11 for closing arguments in the trial.

Both parties face a noon deadline on Jan. 5 to file their briefs, and closing arguments are scheduled to take place in person on Jan. 11, the judge decided after considering scheduling proposals from both the state and the defense.

Engoron said he plans to issue his decision in the case "a few weeks after" closing arguments.

"I would hope this [January] but no guarantees," Engoron said.

State attorneys had requested closing statements take place Dec. 13, while attorneys for Donald Trump suggested closing arguments be presented 60 days after both parties submitted paper filings.