New York appeals panel hears arguments on Trump’s 2024 conviction

A five-judge panel of the New York Appellate Division, First Department, heard arguments Thursday, Nov. 5, on President Donald Trump’s appeal of his 2024 Manhattan conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, The Associated Press and Politico reported.¹² The judges did not immediately rule, Politico reported.²

A jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts on May 30, 2024, and a state judge sentenced him to an unconditional discharge on Jan. 10, 2025, a federal court order says.³ That order says prosecutors alleged the business records disguised reimbursements to Michael Cohen, then Trump’s lawyer, for $130,000 paid to Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.³ Trump denies wrongdoing, AP reported.¹

Trump’s argument

Robert Giuffra Jr., Trump’s lawyer, told the judges that a state prosecution cannot rest on a federal election law, AP reported, and called that issue “the most obvious ground for reversal.”¹ According to Politico, he also argued presidential immunity should have kept jurors from hearing evidence about conversations between Trump and Hope Hicks, then his communications director.² AP reported that the defense also objects to the use of Trump’s social media posts.¹

ABC News reported that Trump’s filings say the district attorney “concocted a purported felony by stacking time-barred misdemeanors.”⁴ An October filing by Giuffra said a president answering personal misconduct allegations “is carrying out his constitutional duties and is protected by immunity,” AP reported.¹

The district attorney’s argument

Steven Wu, a Manhattan assistant district attorney, told the judges the federal law was “important only to show that the purpose for the falsifying business records here was to conceal that conspiracy,” AP reported.¹ Politico reported that he called the Hicks conversations and the social media posts “unofficial conduct” or part of the public record, and said the defense was challenging “a drop in the bucket” of the trial evidence, making any error “harmless error.”²

The office’s filing said the charges “arose from defendant’s unofficial, nonpresidential conduct” and that “a mountain of evidence unaffected by any claim of official presidential immunity” established guilt, ABC News reported on July 29.⁵

The judges’ questions, as reported

AP reported that the judges questioned both Wu and Giuffra.¹

• Justice Troy Webber: “So are you relying upon FECA in order to prove your falsifying business records (charge)?” Wu answered, “Only partially,” AP reported. FECA is the Federal Election Campaign Act.¹³
• Associate Justice Bahaati Pitt-Burke, on Giuffra’s point that any district attorney could bring such a case: “there could be conflicting approaches.” Giuffra replied, “That’s exactly right, your honor,” Politico reported.²
• Pitt-Burke, on Wu’s harmless-error argument: “At what point does it stop being harmless error and turn into something else?” Politico reported.²
• Associate Justice Martin Shulman expressed some support for Giuffra’s position, Politico reported, without quoting him on it.²

The federal case

Trump has separately sought to move the case to federal court. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an earlier denial on Nov. 6, 2025.³ On Aug. 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied the request again, writing that the grounds were “neither new nor legally sufficient.”³

A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team called the ruling “baseless and lawless,” NY1 reported.⁶ His appeal is calendared for argument Nov. 16.⁷ CBS News reported that Hellerstein died a week before the state arguments; the district docket shows a Nov. 5 notice that the case will be reassigned.⁸⁹

What happens next

If Trump loses, he can go to the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, Politico reported.²

What the records do not show

• We found no ruling by the panel.²
• We did not read either side’s appellate brief or an argument transcript. Argument accounts and brief quotations come from the news reports cited.
• The reports we opened name three of the five judges and quote none of them challenging Giuffra.¹²
• The federal rulings address moving the case to federal court, not the state appeal.³