Defense attorney Jesus Suarez began what is expected to be a marathon cross examination of the state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, by attempting to use his words against him.

"Historically banks have been willing to lend to high-net-worth individuals at low rates because they get repaid?" Suarez said, citing McCarty's direct examination.

"That is correct," McCarty said.

Suarez then reminded McCarty that Trump's loans were paid on time -- a point that the former president has reiterated during his appearance in court and on social media.

Suarez then asked if McCarty had charged the attorney general's office $950 per hour for his expert analysis.

"That's my standard rate, yes," said McCarty, who estimated that his total bill for his analysis was $350,000.

The state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump's lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.

McCarty's testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James' case: that Trump's misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.

State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron's earlier summary judgment order about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, "The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did."

McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump's properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

Trump attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected, arguing that McCarty was testifying about facts not established during the trial. During questioning, state attorneys declined to ask a Deutsche Bank executive if the bank would have still done business with Trump had they known his financial statements were inflated.

"They are not ill-gotten gains if the bank does not testify it would have done it differently," Kise said.

"I decided these were ill-gotten," the Judge Engoron replied.

Following Wallace's direct examination of McCarty, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began his cross-examination.

Listing companies like Marriott, Fannie Mae and AT&T, the New York attorney general's lone expert witness, Michiel McCarty, began his testimony by outlining some of the deals he worked on during his nearly 50-year career.

McCarty said that he has worked as an expert witness on "dozens of cases" and testified at 15 trials. But he acknowledged that he had limited experience with the compilation of statements of financial condition, prompting an objection from Trump's lawyer Chris Kise.

"It appears that he does not have the specific experience relevant to the purpose he is here," Kise argued.

Deemed an expert by Judge Engoron, McCarty went on to explain the report he wrote after reviewing Trump's finances.

Former Trump Organization VP David Orowitz testified about Ivanka Trump's involvement with Trump's Old Post Office property in Washington, D.C.

"Ivanka wanted me to change the language in the GAAP section. She asked that I review with you," Orowitz wrote in a 2011 email to then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, referring to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles used in the preparation of financial documents.

Defense attorneys have previously tried to downplay the extent to which Ivanka Trump was involved in the representation of Trump's finances.

Orowitz subsequently stepped down from the witness stand to make way for Michiel McCarty, the state's sole expert witness, to begin his testimony.

Deutsche Bank managing director Dave Williams downplayed the possibility that Donald Trump could have defaulted on the net-worth covenants included in his loans.

While both parties agree that Trump never defaulted on his loans, New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges that had Trump accurately reported the value of his assets, he could have risked defaulting on a loan covenant that required he maintain a net worth of $2.5 billion.

Defense attorney Jesus Suarez pushed back on that allegation by asking Williams about the severity of a covenant default -- i.e., breaching the terms of the loan -- compared to a payment default triggered by a missed payment.

"Generally speaking, a payment default is a more material default than a covenant default," Williams said. "It speaks definitively to the repayment of the loan."

Williams described a loan covenant as a "guardrail," and suggested that breaching the covenant would have brought Trump back to the negotiating table to adjust the loan terms.

Williams also reiterated that he was not aware of any loan or covenant defaults by Trump.

James is expected to request a fine of nearly $400 million for Trump's allegedly ill-gotten gains, including over $140 million based on the potential interest she says was lost by Deutsche Bank. By proving that the loan agreements were lawful, Trump's lawyers could significantly lower the fine Trump faces.