Donald Trump has canceled his plans to testify in his own defense in his civil fraud trial, the former president said in a statement Sunday.

"I will not be testifying on Monday. MAGA!" Trump wrote on social media.

Trump cited the testimony of his expert witnesses, the use of what he called his "ironclad disclaimer clause," and alleged bias by the judge overseeing the case as reasons he no longer planned to testify.

"I HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED TO EVERYTHING & HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY OTHER THAN THAT THIS IS A COMPLETE & TOTAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE," he wrote.

The former president was due to return to the courtroom Monday after testifying last month in the state's case.

New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov will have to return to court on Tuesday to conclude his testimony, after his direct examination ran longer than expected.

After Bartov's direct examination concluded, state attorney Louis Solomon began his cross-examination -- but the parties agreed to adjourn for the day and resume the cross-examination next week.

Donald Trump is scheduled to be the only witness on Monday.

Once Bartov concludes his testimony, New York Attorney General Letitia James plans to present a brief rebuttal case.

The defense's accounting expert, Eli Bartov, was paid approximately $877,500 for his expert analysis, the New York University professor testified.

Bartov said he was paid an hourly rate of $1,350 for 650 hours of work, receiving payments from the Trump Organization and Trump's Save America PAC.

The state's lone expert witness, Michiel McCarty, was paid roughly $350,000 for his testimony.

Bartov's testimony about his compensation followed a tense exchange in which defense attorney Alina Habba accused Judge Engoron of "wasting time and money" by ignoring expert testimony.

"Why are we wasting our time if nobody is considering the words coming out of our experts' mouths?" Habba said.

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.

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.