Donald Trump's accounting expert snapped at a lawyer for the New York attorney general after the lawyer suggested his opinion was bought by the defense team.

As accounting expert Eli Bartov was testifying about Trump's use of disclaimers in his financial statements, state attorney Kevin Wallace interjected, saying, "This is pure speculation from someone they hired to say whatever it is they want."

Still in the witness box, Bartov began yelling at Wallace about the comment as Trump sat watching a few feet away.

"You make up allegations that never existed," Bartov shouted. "I am here to tell the truth. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for talking like that."

Bartov, in his testimony, said that Trump's use of disclaimers functioned "just like the warning from the surgeon general on a box of cigarettes."

The accounting expert said that Trump's disclaimers clearly flagged to his lenders that they should conduct their own due diligence regarding the figures, rather than rely on them at face value. Witnesses from Deutsche Bank -- Trump's primary lender during the 2010s -- previously testified that they conducted due diligence and significantly undercut the valuations Trump provided in his financial statement when deciding to offer him loans.

"I never saw anything that is clearer than that," Bartov said about the language in Trump's disclaimer clause. "Even my nine-year-old granddaughter Emma would understand this language."

In his pretrial summary judgment ruling, Judge Engoron dismissed Trump's argument that disclaimer clauses protect him from allegations of fraud. While multiple defense witnesses have attempted to rebut Engoron's opinion about Trump's use of disclaimer clauses, the judge has signaled he stands by his opinion.

"My summary judgment is the law of the case on the legal effect of this paragraph or these sentences," Engoron said in response to Bartov's testimony, adding that the clauses "would not insulate the client."

Nevertheless, Trump attorney Chris Kise requested that Engoron reconsider his finding.

"I am fairly liberal in reconsidering my opinions," Engoron said before Bartov resumed his testimony.

During a short break in testimony, Donald Trump applauded the findings of accounting expert Eli Bartov, who testified that he found no evidence of accounting fraud in Trump's statements of financial condition.

"He reviewed fully the documents that this horrendous attorney general has put forward, and he found absolutely no fraud, accounting fraud of any kind," Trump told reporters.

Trump, however, acknowledged that Judge Engoron might not be swayed by Bartov's testimony.

"We will probably go forward and I'm sure nothing will have any bearing on what this judge does," Trump said.

Donald Trump's overstatement of the value of his Trump Tower penthouse apartment was a mistake, according to accounting expert Eli Bartov -- but not fraud.

"The price was inflated. There is no question about it," Bartov said about Trump more than doubling the value of his triplex apartment on his statement of financial condition, from $80 million to $180 million, between 2011 and 2012.

Bartov chalked up the mistake to the inevitable errors that occur in the process of compiling a statement of financial condition. He said that if Trump meant to commit fraud by inflating the value of his apartment, he would have made some effort to conceal it.

"There is no evidence here of concealment," Bartov said. "It's true this is an error. But it is no fraud."

Bartov instead blamed Trump's external accounting firm for failing to catch the obvious error.

"They submitted to him the supporting documents. Any person that had one year experience in auditing ... will immediately see there is a jump from 80 million to 180 million," he said.

The New York attorney general's civil fraud complaint against former President Trump lacks merit, a defense expert in accounting testified.

"My main finding is that there is no evidence whatsoever for any accounting fraud," New York University professor Eli Bartov said. "My analysis shows the statements of financial condition for all the years were not materially misstated."

Bartov's testimony bolstered the defense's contention that non-audited financial statements, like Trump's, are unreliable and represent only a first step in analysis.

"You cannot use the raw numbers in the statements as the basis for making decisions," Bartov said. "If you do that, you are likely to reach the wrong decision."

Judge Engoron asked Bartov whether the attorney general's complaint had no merit.

"This is absolutely my opinion," Bartov replied.

"And why is that?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez jumped in to ask.

"There is not a single reference to a specific provision of GAAP that was violated," Bartov said, referring to the generally accepted accounting principles." "If you allege there was an accounting violation, they have to tell us what provision was violated."

State attorneys objected to the relevance of Bartov's opinion, but Judge Engoron denied the objection.

Doug Larson's name appears across five years of Donald Trump's financial documents, according to records entered into evidence.

A longtime professional appraiser with the real estate firm Cushman & Wakefield, Larson was cited in Trump Organization documents as an expert at valuing properties like 40 Wall Street, Trump Tower, and an adjoining retail space called "Niketown." Spreadsheets entered as evidence explicitly reference multiple phone calls with Larson between 2013 and 2017.

When asked about these phone calls in court, Larson testified that no such conversations occurred.

"Is it fair to say that Mr. Trump valued Trump Tower at $526 million in conjunction with you?" state attorney Mark Ladov asked Larson.

"No, that is incorrect," Larson said.

"Were you aware that Mr. McConney was citing you as a valuation source in his work papers?" Ladov asked.

"No, I was not," replied Larson, who said he did not assist Trump Organization executives in valuing Trump Tower, Niketown, or 40 Wall Street, despite Trump's paperwork referencing him as a source.

Evidence presented by the state instead suggested that the valuations were determined using cherry-picked metrics from a generic email Larson sent clients.

"It's a way to get your name out to clients for potential work," Larson said about one such "email blast" that was used in a Trump Tower valuation.

Larson added that the valuations Trump Organization executives determined based on "consultation" with him used flawed methodologies, such as using capitalization rates related to office buildings to appraise the retail Niketown building.

"It doesn't make sense," Larson said about Niketown's $287 million valuation.

"It's inappropriate and inaccurate," Larson said about the Trump Organization relying on his name to support their valuations. "I should have been told, and appraisals should have been ordered."