Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York has filed a judicial complaint against Judge Arthur Engoron.

The letter, addressed to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, largely concerns the judge's rulings in the case and his public statements, and is unlikely to impact the proceedings of the trial.

"Judge Engoron's bizarre and biased behavior is making New York's judicial system a laughingstock," Stefanik, a staunch Trump supporter, wrote.

The lengthy letter echoes some of Trump's attacks on the trial, criticizing Engoron's limited gag order in the case, the actions of his legal clerk, his summary judgment ruling, and his comments during Trump's testimony this week.

"Simply put, Judge Engoron has displayed a clear judicial bias against the defendant throughout the case, breaking several rules in the New York Code of Judicial Conduct," Stefanik wrote.

Court has adjourned for the day, with the trial scheduled to resume Monday for the start of the defense's case.

The court will be closed Friday in observation of Veterans Day.

Donald Trump Jr. will return to the witness stand to testify as the defense's first witness on Monday, assuming the judge does not rule in favor of Trump's motion for a directed verdict to end the case early.

Judge Engoron has denied a motion from the New York attorney general to preclude four expert witnesses from testifying for the defense when the defense presents it case starting on Monday.

The state had sought to preclude the four experts' testimony on the grounds that, following the testimony of the state's witnesses, the four defense witnesses were no longer relevant to the case.

"You've won the battle. We'll see if you win the war," Engoron told defense attorney Chris Kise -- though he warned Kise that he would cut off the witnesses if they try to debate facts already established in the case.

In making his ruling, Engoron reiterated his finding from his earlier summary judgment order that Donald Trump made at least ten internally contradictory claims in his statements of financial condition.

"You can't have a correct statement with these kinds of errors," Engoron said.

Kise told the court that Donald Trump Jr. will be the first witness to testify in the defense's case on Monday.

"Oh, I know him," Engoron deadpanned after the announcement.

It will mark Trump Jr.'s return to the witness box after the state put him on the stand last week.

Court has resumed after a lunch break, and Trump attorney Chris Kise appears to have had a change of heart regarding his earlier barb directed toward state attorney Andrew Amer.

Before lunch, Kise threw some shade at Amer during arguments over the state's motion to preclude testimony from four of the defense's expert witnesses.

Returning from court after the break, Kise took back his words and apologized.

"I am going to apologize to the court, I am going to apologize to Mr. Amer," Kise said.

"I appreciate it and accept the apology," Amer responded.

Deutsche Bank was a serious company in business with Donald Trump to make money, defense attorney Jesus Suarez said during his cross examination of former Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh.

At the height of its relationship with the Trump Organization the company loaned Trump over $378 million, and failed to commission independent appraisals of Trump's properties, Haigh acknowledged. While the bank listed lower estimates for the value of Trump's assets year after year, it continued to do business with Trump and his company.

"We ... the bank hadn't done all the due diligence one would do in the sense of the opinion of value you see in an appraisal," Haigh said, at one point agreeing with the defense's characterization that the bank's internal value services group conducted "sanity checks'' on the numbers.

The direct examination of Haigh by state attorney Kevin Wallace also left a central question about Deutsche Bank's activity unanswered.

In a letter to the court and in previous arguments, lawyers for the attorney general suggested that Haigh might have turned away Trump's business if he had known that Trump's assets were inflated in value.

"As this Court noted during summary judgment arguments, Mr. Haigh testified during OAG's investigation that he may not have authorized lending to the borrower if he had at that time been aware of the inflated asset values contained in Mr. Trump's SFCs [statements of financial condition]," a lawyer for the attorney general wrote to the court in a letter last week.

Wallace never directly posed the hypothetical to Haigh during his direct examination, leaving the question unresolved.

Court subsequently adjourned for the day, with Suarez telling the court he plans to continue his cross examination of Haigh through Thursday afternoon.