I don’t know anything about New York law and wasn’t about to watch a two hour video.
My only thoughts on the NY Civil case has been that there doesn’t have to be a victim. I assumed that argument had been presented as a prudential argument/evidence of politicization rather than a legal argument.
Looking at it in a legal framework:
The statute doesn’t appear to require an injured party.
The constitution doesn’t prohibit victimless crimes, I can’t imagine there’s any restriction on non-criminal sanctions for conduct that could but has not yet caused any harm, when there is a legitimate state interest in prohibiting the conduct.
There may be some creative constitutional arguments, state constitutional arguments, or statutory/common law arguments that I’m not aware of. If I had the inclination to spend 24 hours riling those things out, YouTube would not make the cut for how I would use my time (although this guy went to a decent school, seems not to have appeared on infowars, and is barred in the same state so he’s a big improvement over some of the others, on paper).
There are constitutional limits on fines and punitive damages but I’ve stayed out of arguing about whether any of the ones levied against Trump will be reduced because I don’t have anything more than a vague opinion.