Hours after an appeals court temporarily lifted a gag order that prohibited Donald Trump from commenting about court staff in his civil fraud trial, the former president criticized Judge Arthur Engoron's law clerk on social media.

Describing the gag order as "Ridiculous and Unconstitutional," Trump applauded the appeals court for its decision and described Engoron's clerk as "politically biased and out of control."

Engoron issued the limited gag order after Trump made a false social media post about the clerk last month. This evening's post marked the first time Trump has explicitly mentioned her since then.

Trump also attacked New York Attorney General Letitia James, calling her a "worldwide disgrace," and his former attorney Michael Cohen, who testified against him during the trial.

After attentively watching the testimony of the defense's real estate expert Steven Laposa, Judge Engoron adjourned court for the day without referencing the stay of his limited gag order issued this afternoon by an appellate court.

The judge's clerk -- who was the subject of Trump's false social media post that triggered Engoron's limited gag order last month -- remained in her regular seat next to the judge after the ruling came down.

Court will resume with Laposa back on the stand Friday.

The New York attorney general's approach to valuing Donald Trump's properties was "flawed," according to testimony from the defense's real estate expert Steven Laposa.

Laposa said that the attorney general's complaint relied on a market value analysis of Trump's properties, rather than the investment value of the assets, which would consider the asset's value based on an individual's investment requirements instead of market norms.

"In my opinion, it's flawed," Laposa said about the attorney general's findings.

Judge Arthur Engoron appeared attentive during Laposa's testimony, overruling an objection from the state that would have limited the scope of his testimony.

"I want to hear what he says about evaluations," Engoron said.

Defense attorney Alina Habba, speaking to reporters outside court, said that an appellate judge's decision to temporarily stay Judge Engoron's limited gag order on Donald Trump would allow the defense team to continue raising issues with the conduct of Engoron's clerk.

Habba also said she saw no reason to advise Trump to refrain from attacking the clerk now that the gag order has been stayed -- despite Judge Engoron's concerns about his staff facing threats.

"There is not a day that I don't get a threat. It's just part of the game," Habba said. "If I put something out on social media, and I get a threat for it, which has happened to me every single day, I don't get to cry."

"Ms. James is continuing to disparage my client," Habba said, referring to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed the lawsuit against Trump. "And they were grasping at straws for a reason to say that the president should be gagged. There was no reason."

James did not ask for the gag order, which was issued by Judge Engoron last month out of concern for the safety of his staff after Trump made a false post about his clerk on social media.

Citing their ethical obligations, lawyers for the defendants in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial declined to provide details about "rumors of any kind" involving former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and urged Judge Arthur Engoron to make a decision solely based on the evidence presented at trial, after Engoron asked them to weigh in on public reports that Weisselberg was engaged in plea talks with the Manhattan DA's office to resolve a potential perjury charge.

In a letter submitted to Judge Engoron Wednesday, defense attorney Clifford Robert urged the judge to strictly consider the record from the trial in his final decision, describing his request to provide information about Weisselberg based on a New York Times article "unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling."

"The Article simply does not provide any principled basis for the Court to reopen the record or question the veracity of Mr. Weisselberg's testimony in this case. Indeed, we respectfully submit that the Court's request for comment on this speculative media account is unprecedented, inappropriate, and troubling," Robert wrote.

In a separate letter, Alina Habba -- who represents Weisselberg in the civil case but is not his criminal defense lawyer -- declined to provide any information about the potential perjury and argued that no further action was needed on the matter.

"The New York Times article is neither admissible nor reliable, and it should not be considered in Your Honor's determination as to the merits of this case," Habba wrote. "We urge you to render your decision based solely on the evidence now before you."

"Court decisions are supposed to be made based on the evidence at trial, not on media speculation," defense attorney Chris Kise said in a statement.