Judge Arthur Engoron denied Donald Trump's request for a mistrial, describing the defendants' arguments as "nonsensical," "disingenuous," and "utterly without merit."

Engoron rejected the motion without hearing any arguments from the New York Attorney General, who earlier this week requested that an extended briefing be scheduled.

"I cannot sign a proposed order to show cause that is utterly without merit, and upon which subsequent briefing would therefore be futile," Engoron wrote in his ruling.

Across a four-page order, Engoron sharply disagreed with the allegations from the defendants that he was engaging in "co-judging" with his law clerk.

"As I have made clear over the course of this trial, my rulings are mine, and mine alone. There is absolutely no 'co-judging' at play," Engoron said.

Addressing his principal law clerk's political donations, which the judge said she has largely made in order to purchase tickets to functions while pursuing elected judicial office, Engoron called out the defendants for failing to acknowledge the "applicable unambiguous ethical guidelines" that permit such donations. He similarly dismissed the idea that his clerk attending events sponsored by political organizations implies that she supports any position taken by those groups.

"Such arguments are nonsensical; and in any event, they are a red herring, as my Principal Law Clerk does not make rulings or issue orders -- I do," Engoron said in his ruling.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day.

The due diligence conducted by the Trump Organization's insurance company amounted to nothing more than "airballs and witchcraft," according to the defense's underwriting expert Gary Giulietti.

Giulietti's testimony appeared to cast doubt on the extent to which the Zurich Insurance Group scrutinized Trump's financial documents that are at the center of the case.

In a deposition that was played earlier in court, Zurich insurance underwriter Claudia Mouradian said she relied on assurances that the Trump Organization's $6 billion in assets were supported by appraisals.

"They should have asked if they wanted it," Giulietti testified, adding that Zurich's approach of relying on media reports about Trump's net worth was "inconsistent" with industry standards.

Giulietti acknowledged that he had an ongoing business relationship with Trump, including making $1.2 million in commissions from the company in 2022. A personal friend of Trump, Giulietti confidently defended his business record on the stand.

"You're sort of insulting me aren't you?" he said after state attorney Andrew Amer, on cross-examination, questioned his qualifications as an expert witness. "There's no one like me in the industry."

He later said he was sorry for his response.

"I would like to apologize to the counsel. Not my style," he told Amer.

The cross examination of the defense's real estate expert, which was expected to last at least two hours, ended abruptly after he appeared to contradict his own findings in the expert report he had compiled.

Steven Laposa testified yesterday that he believed the attorney general's report was "flawed" because it was based on the market value of Trump's assets, rather than their investment value, which could be much higher.

Minutes into his cross-examination, state attorney Louis Solomon requested that Laposa read the second sentence of the notes section of Donald Trump's statement of financial condition.

"Assets are stated at their estimated current values," the note said, referring to the properties' market value.

"First time I've seen this," Laposa responded after reading the note, which supported the attorney general's contention that the valuations were indeed based on market values.

"You wrote a report accusing the attorney general of bias" by using market values, Solomon lectured Laposa, prompting a sustained objection from the defense.

Solomon's cross-examination of Laposa concluded after the exchange.

The defense's real estate expert Steven Laposa resumed his testimony this morning by testifying about Donald Trump's "trophy properties."

Under questioning from the defense, Laposa explained that certain unique and iconic properties could be classified as trophy properties, which are generally purchased by a smaller pool of real estate investors. Trump's lawyers have claimed that the former president's assets include multiple trophy properties that were undervalued in his financial statements.

When Laposa attempted to describe how trophy properties are generally valued differently compared to normal buildings, state attorney Louis Solomon objected to the line of questioning, calling it a "waste of time."

Judge Arthur Engoron sustained the objection.

Ex-CFO Allen Weisselberg, who testified earlier Tuesday that Trump approved his financial statements before they were finalized during the years between 2011 and 2016, was unable to recall who approved financial statements after Trump was elected president in 2016.

While he recalled discussing some elements of the statements with Trump Organization VP Eric Trump, he declined to say that either Eric or VP Don Jr. had final say regarding the statements.

Court then adjourned for the day.

Court is set to resume Wednesday morning with the testimony of Deutsche Bank risk manager Nicholas Haigh, who is testifying early due to a scheduling conflict.

Weisselberg is scheduled to return to the witness stand later Wednesday.