Ivanka Trump was removed from the courtroom for ten minutes while attorneys argued over whether the statute of limitations applied to the deals discussed during her testimony.

"These deals ... had requirements for updated financials year, after year, after year," Judge Arthur Engoron said. "To me, they are very much part of this case."

Donald Trump's lawyer argued that Ivanka Trump's conduct between 2011 and 2013 could not impact someone else recertifying the loans years later.

"It's theoretically impossible -- it's beyond implausible that some event that took place in 2016 would have changed the course of events in 2011, 2012, and 2013," Trump attorney Chris Kise said.

Judge Engoron appeared unconvinced by the arguments and allowed the testimony to continue.

"The ship has sailed," Engoron said.

Asked about her involvement in her father's statements of financial condition that the judge has already determined fraudulently overvalued his real estate and inflated his net worth, Ivaka Trump said she had no knowledge of them.

"I would assume he had a personal financial statement," Ivanka Trump said. "Those weren't things that I was privy to."

Regarding a lease she had for a penthouse apartment in Trump Park Avenue that included an option to buy for $8.5 million, the New York attorney general's office said Trump's statement financial condition claimed that units in the building were selling for $20.8 million -- two and a half times as much.

Asked by state lawyer Louis Solomon whether she knew about that discrepancy, Ivanka Trump responded, "I wasn't involved in his statement of financial condition so I can't say what it took into account or didn't take into account."

Solomon pressed her about the documents, asking, "Did you know whether he had personal financial statements, Donald J. Trump?" Solomon asked.

"I'm not involved in his personal financial statements. I didn't know about his personal statements, per se, other than what you've showed me," Ivanka Trump responded.

"Did you have any role in preparing Donald J. Trump's statements of financial condition?"

"Not that I'm aware of," she replied.

In 2011, as the Trump Organization sought financing for its purchase and renovation of the Doral golf club in Miami, Deutsche Bank agreed to loan Trump the necessary funds, with one critical catch -- the deal would be secured by Donald Trump's net worth.

"Is DJT willing to do that? Also, the net worth covenants and DJT indebtedness limitations would seem to me to be a problem?" Trump Organization executive Jason Greenblatt wrote in an email to Ivanka Trump and CFO Allen Weisselberg that was entered into evidence. The arrangement required Trump to maintain a net worth of $3 billion.

Trump's 2011 statement of financial condition, one of the documents the New York attorney general alleges contained fraudulent valuations, listed his net worth as more than $4 billion. However Ivanka Trump asked Deutsche Bank to lower the amount of wealth her father would have to maintain, according to an email exchange entered into evidence.

"As I said before, I don't recall the net worth covenant," Ivanka Trump testified.

She proposed $2 billion, emails show. Deutsche Bank ultimately settled for $2.5 billion.

Ivanka Trump flashed a smile at Judge Engoron when he recommended to her that, when reviewing evidence, it would be easier for her to look at the big screen set up in the courtroom instead of the papers in her lap.

"Thank you," she said with a laugh.

Unlike her father, who roiled the judge and tangled with state attorneys during his testimony Monday, Ivanka Trump is reserved and soft spoken on the stand, at times speaking so quietly in answering questions that it's hard to hear her.

The entire courtroom appears to be following her tone, with Judge Engoron and attorneys from both side conducting themselves calmly even when objections are raised.

Defense attorney Chris Kise requested that Judge Engoron again reconsider his decision to fine Donald Trump $10,000 for violating the case's limited gag order yesterday, offering a broader criticism of the gag order based on First Amendment grounds.

"This is open, public, and the defendant has a First Amendment right to comment on what he sees and perceives as a potential source of bias," Kise said.

Like yesterday, Kise maintained that Trump was referring to Michael Cohen, rather than the judge's law clerk, during his hallway statement in which he said the judge has a "person who is very partisan sitting alongside of him." Trump attested to this on the stand yesterday, though Engoron found that Trump was "not credible."

"The review of the statement does not support the sanction," Kise said.

Even if Trump was referring to the clerk, Kise made a broader argument that the gag order itself was "constitutionally infirm," considering Trump is the "leading candidate" for the presidency.

"I don't think that the order survives constitutional scrutiny," Kise said.

State attorney Andrew Amer argued in support of the gag order, which he said was narrowly limited to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

"A federal judge in D.C. has issued a similar order to protect herself," Amer added, referring to a ruling in Trump's election interference case.

Judge Engoron said he would reconsider the fine but stood by his gag order.