Ivanka Trump must appear to testify at her father’s fraud trial, Judge Arthur Engoron decided from the bench Friday morning.

“I want to see her in person. That is how we prefer testimony,” Engoron said after denying Ivanka Trump’s motion to quash the trial subpoenas she was served.

While Ivanka Trump was not in attendance at Friday's hearing, her lawyer Bennet Moskowitz argued that the state’s justification for bringing Ivanka to the courtroom “falls on its face.”

Characterizing the state’s argument as “a bridge too far,” Moskowitz reiterated that Ivanka neither lives nor has done business in New York since 2017.

State attorney Kevin Wallace defended the subpoenas by arguing Ivanka Trump was a former Trump Organization executive who was the main contact with lenders for Trump’s Washington D.C. Old Post Office hotel. Wallace added that Ivanka Trump still owns properties in New York and operates business here.

Ruling from the bench after a short break, Engoron found that the state presented sufficient evidence to prove that Ivanka does business in New York.

“Ms. Trump owns property in New York and has done business in New York,” he said.

Engoron added that her testimony should not be scheduled before next Wednesday to allow her lawyers to appeal his ruling.

“A trial is a search for the truth, and the law is entitled to every person’s evidence,” Engoron said.

Judge Engoron will hear arguments Friday morning about Ivanka Trump's efforts to quash three subpoenas related to her potential testimony at her father's civil trial.

In September, the New York attorney general's office attempted to compel Ivanka Trump to testify by sending subpoenas to three corporate entities related to her. Her lawyer, Bennet Moskowitz, filed a motion last week to quash the subpoenas, which he argued lacked jurisdiction.

Ivanka Trump was originally included in the attorney general's $250 million lawsuit, along with her father and brothers, before an appeals court dismissed her from the case in June because she was no longer part of the Trump Organization by 2016.

Donald Trump, in 2014, valued his Los Angeles golf club at over $100 million more than the amount it was appraised at, according to evidence shown in court.

Trump's former tax attorney, Sheri Dillon, testified that when working on a conservation easement for the driving range at Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles in 2014, she received an appraisal that valued the entire club at $107 million.

However, the spreadsheet used to create Trump's financial statements placed the value of the golf club at $213 million that same year, according to documents entered into evidence.

Shown the document during her testimony, Dillion said she was unfamiliar with it.

"I have never seen this document. I don't even know what this is," she said when she was shown the spreadsheet, which Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney previously testified he maintained.

When state attorney Louis Solomon attempted to highlight the alleged overvaluation, their exchange grew combative.

"We have the right to treat her as a hostile witness," Solomon said -- a request that was granted by Judge Engoron.

"Did you ever discuss with anyone at the Trump Organization the valuation of [the golf club]?" Solomon asked Dillon at one point.

"I don't recall. Over the years, I am sure it came up at some point," Dillon said, though she could not recall if she directly discussed it with then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day, with Dillon's testimony scheduled to resume tomorrow morning.

The sworn testimony of former President Trump in court yesterday was "hollow and untrue," according to a written order issued today by Judge Engoron.

The order, which memorializes yesterday's ruling that Trump violated the case's limited gag order, offers a stronger repudiation of Trump's sworn testimony than the judge articulated yesterday, when he called Trump's testimony "not credible."

"I then conducted a brief hearing, during which Donald Trump testified, under oath that he was referring to Michael Cohen. However, as the trier of fact, I find this testimony rings hollow and untrue," Engoron wrote in his order.

Like his in-court statements yesterday, Engoron remarked that Trump's hallway statement about "a person who's very partisan sitting alongside him, perhaps even more partisan than he is" was inconsistent with how Trump frequently refers to Cohen. Going as far as to cite the Oxford English Dictionary, Engoron wrote that "alongside" is more likely to refer to his clerk than the witness, who sits below the judge.

"Using imprecise language as an excuse to create plausible ambiguity about whether defendant violated this Court's unequivocal gag order is not a defense; the subject of Donald Trump's public statement to the press was unmistakably clear," Engoron wrote.

Trump's lawyers said they plan to appeal the order.

The second day of testimony from the defense's expert accounting witness prompted an argument between attorneys for the two sides over the basic question of what the case is about -- leading defense lawyers to make their fourth unsuccessful request for a directed verdict to end the trial.

The arguments came toward the end of direct testimony by accounting expert defense Eli Bartov, who asserted the New York attorney general's case lacked merit because there was no evidence of any fraud on Trump's statements of financial condition, and that any errors about the values of Trump's properties were unintentional and therefore immaterial.

When the defense attempted to question Bartov about those values, state attorneys objected -- prompting defense attorney Christopher Kise to leap from his seat.

"If they don't call anyone to dispute our values, how have they proven their case?" Kise said.

Judge Arthur Engoron, in a pretrial ruling, already decided that Trump conducted a decade's worth of business using fraudulent financial statements, and state attorney Kevin Wallace suggested that Bartov's findings do not change those findings.

"You can't use false statements in business. That's what the summary judgment decision is all about. I think it is pretty much what the rest of this case is about," Engoron said in response to Kise's question.

Kise argued that if the attorney general doesn't prove what Trump's asset values should have been, the case is a "completely rudderless ship" that needs to be "moored to some sort of standard."

"You can't just say it's a misstatement because you feel like it," Kise argued.

"The standard is truth," Engoron responded.

The exchange prompted Trump's legal spokesperson, Alina Habba, to make the defense's fourth motion for a directed verdict, arguing that Engoron is "wasting our time" if he won't consider their expert testimony.

"They have not proven their case. They haven't," Habba said in her request for a directed verdict.

"Denied," Engoron said within seconds of the request, without hearing a response from lawyers for the New York attorney general.