Former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg is expected to testify when former President Donald Trump's civil fraud resumes this morning.

A named defendant in the case alongside Trump and his adult sons, Weisselberg allegedly supervised and approved the inflated valuations in Trump's financial statements at the center of the state's case, according to state attorneys.

He's also alleged to have personally met with the former president each year between 2011 and 2016 to review and get approval for the fraudulent financial statements.

"Mr. Trump made known through Mr. Weisselberg that he wanted his net worth on the Statements to increase -- a desire Mr. Weisselberg and others carried out year after year in their fraudulent preparation of the Statements," New York Attorney General Letitia James wrote in her initial complaint.

A New York appellate judge declined to pause Donald Trump's ongoing civil fraud trial, after attorneys for Trump sought a stay of the trial while they appeal Judge Arthur Engoron's summary judgment ruling last week that decided the core of the case.

Judge Peter Moulton issued the ruling minutes after hearing oral arguments from both sides. While he did not pause the trial, he did stop the immediate cancelation of Trump's business certificates that Engoron had ordered last week.

"This is everything owned or controlled by the defendant. Once you dissolve you dissolve," defense attorney Christopher Kise argued in an afternoon hearing convened at the Appellate Division's First Department. "It's chaos. It's chaos right now."

The New York attorney general's office balked at halting the trial.

"There's just absolutely no basis for an interim stay of trial that's already been going on for a week," said Deputy Solicitor General Judy Vale. "It has been an enormous endeavor to get this off the ground."

Trump's defense insisted a pause was warranted given the magnitude of the potential consequences for Trump's business.

"We're not seeking delay. We're seeking a fair trial," Kise said before the judge ruled that the trial would continue.

The trial is scheduled to resume Tuesday morning.

State attorney Andrew Amer ended the afternoon dramatically, questioning longtime Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney about whether he had ever helped Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg commit tax fraud.

McConney initially responded that he had not -- prompting Amer to confront McConney with his testimony from the Trump Organization's 2022 tax fraud trial, at which he testified the opposite.

Among other offenses, McConney testified during that trial that he processed a payroll check to Weisselberg's wife so she could claim social security benefits.

"You engaged in this illegal conduct because Mr. Weisselberg was your boss and if you refused his requests, you would lose your job?" Amer asked.

"Yes," McConney said.

The trial adjourned until Tuesday, when it's scheduled to resume with the direct examination of Weisselberg.

This afternoon, an appellate court will take up Trump’s request to pause the trial while he appeals Judge Engoron's summary judgment ruling last week that decided the core of the case.

Longtime Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney continued to value Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in excess of $500 million -- on the basis that the property could be sold as private residences -- despite knowing that Trump has signed a deed in 2002 with the National Trust for Historic Preservation exclusively limiting the property to being used as a club.

"Mr. Trump had deeded away his rights to use the property for any purpose other than a social club," state attorney Andrew Amer said while questioning McConney, who initially claimed he was unaware of the requirement but subsequently testified that he was aware of the 2002 deed.

Despite the requirement, McConney -- according to Trump's financial statements -- valued Mar-a-Lago as if the property could be sold as individual residences, every year that he oversaw the statements, between 2011 and 2017.

An attorney for Judge Arthur Engoron also filed in support of the gag order in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial, arguing that violent threats have increased since the gag order was lifted.

The limited gag order, which prohibited Donald Trump and his attorneys from publicly commenting about Engoron's staff, was issued by the judge last month after Trump posted about the judge's law clerk on social media. Judge David Friedman of the appellate division's First Department stayed the order on Thursday, citing constitutional concerns over Trump's free speech rights.

Engoron's filing includes a report from Charles Hollon of the Judicial Threats Assessment Unit of the New York State Court System's Department of Public Safety. According to the report, Engoron and his principal law clerk, Allison Greenfield, have been inundated with credible, violent and antisemitic threats since Trump began criticizing Greenfield.

"The threats against Justice Engoron and Ms. Greenfield are considered to be serious and credible and not hypothetical or speculative," Hollon wrote in the report.

Greenfield has been the victim of daily doxing of her personal email address and phone number, receiving dozens of calls, emails and social media messages daily, according to Hollon. Approximately half the harassing messages have been antisemitic, according to Greenfield.

In the report, Hollon wrote that Engoron was the subject of credible threats before the trial had started, but Trump's Oct. 3 Truth Social post directed at Greenfield exponentially increased the number of threats directed at her.

The report included multiple examples of voicemails that were left on the telephone in Engoron's chambers.

Hollon said the messages have created an "ongoing security risk" for Engoron, his staff and family, but that the gag order had been effective in lowering the number of threats.

"The implementation of the limited gag orders resulted in a decrease in the number of threats, harassment and disparaging messages that the judge and his staff received," Hollon said in the report. "However, when Mr. Trump violated the gag orders, the number of threatening, harassing and disparaging messages increased."

Engoron's lawyer, Lisa Evans, said the threats detailed in Hollon's affirmation justify the gag order, which functions as a reasonable limit on free speech.

"The First Amendment does not prohibit courts from limiting speech that threatens the safety of the court's staff," Evans wrote.

Trump's reply to the filing is due on Nov. 27, after which the First Department will decide whether to fully lift the gag order.