So, to be clear, you believe a cause of action brought by the state of New York, under the exact same statute, alleging that knowingly lying about the value of collateral for a loan is a fraudulent business practice is not “similar” to Trump’s case because the lender requested the inflated valuation from the third party plaintiff rather than simply being lied to by Trump about the lender’s prospects of being made whole in the event of default?
To the extent those are not “similar,” you’re saying that enabling the lender to knowingly take on more risk is worse than lying to the lender about how much risk they’re taking on?
I don't think its as apples to apples as you are making it out to be. Its not apples to tanks, but there are some pretty clear distinctions.
1. Is Trump or his various businesses held to this standard?
"eAppraiseIT publicly advertises that its appraisals conform with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and that they are "audited for compliance." "
This would be key to saying its a similar enough case. If Trump's businesses don't operate under that standard, they can't be held liable for it. just because its an adjacent industry doesn't mean they can be held to even similar standards. I am an architect, I am not held to the same standards as a real estate agent, contractor, engineer, or anyone else, you haven't established why Trump should be held to this standard.
2. Does he or his business actively advertise their services under this standard or as an appraiser? that would be fraud, if he was advertising as an appraiser working to that standard, and wasn't upholding it. I don't think there is a similar standard for Trump's businesses as noted above. or if he claimed the numbers on the financial disclosure were appraisals when they weren't.
3. the value of a property is quiet often not the same as what it is appraised for, Mar-a-lago being appraised at $18 million being a great piece to reference here. I can't find the actual Law being broken here to read the language but I would like to see what is required on these financial disclosures. The language would be telling, is an appraisal required/does the listed value have to be from an appraisal? the General Business Law 349 doesn't get into any type of specifics towards what documentation is required.
NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov if it was, then yeah Trump is guilty under the law, if that isn't required I am not sure why its brought up. it makes sense for the eAppraiseIT/First American case, but maybe not for Trump.
4. Trumps case doesn't hinge around a third party illegally influencing another, or at least I haven't seen that case made. Trumps case was purely between two parties. eAppraiseIT was dealing with a third party, and then all the individual buyers/sellers.
5. eAppraiseIT case also hinges on the involved parties actively knowing they were violating their standards, and kept doing it. I have yet to see that established with Trump. again it could be happening, but I haven't seen it from the judge's ruling.
so yeah, I don't see how its similar at all except its charged under the same base law. which is INCREDIBLY broad. the eAppraiseIT/First American case is wholly centered around appraisals and the standards there of. I would need to see a New York law that says a financial disclosure is equal to or held to the same/similar standard, or that Trump's businesses are held to some equal level of standard.
