The testimony of Donald Trump’s former tax lawyer Sheri Dillon continued Friday morning after a hearing where Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Ivanka Trump to testify at the trial as early as next week.

State attorney Louis Solomon attempted to highlight development restrictions that Trump allegedly agreed to for two properties that appeared to contradict proposed conservation easements.

“Yes, it’s complicated. For the most part, it didn't matter,” Dillon testified, arguing that the restrictions would not impact Trump’s conservation easements.

After an hour of similar questions and responses, Engoron appeared to lose patience and briefly excused the witness from the stand.

“I feel we are two or three elements away from anything that is relevant,” Engoron said. “It seems to me this is becoming a game of gotcha.”

Ivanka Trump must appear to testify at her father’s fraud trial, Judge Arthur Engoron decided from the bench Friday morning.

“I want to see her in person. That is how we prefer testimony,” Engoron said after denying Ivanka Trump’s motion to quash the trial subpoenas she was served.

While Ivanka Trump was not in attendance at Friday's hearing, her lawyer Bennet Moskowitz argued that the state’s justification for bringing Ivanka to the courtroom “falls on its face.”

Characterizing the state’s argument as “a bridge too far,” Moskowitz reiterated that Ivanka neither lives nor has done business in New York since 2017.

State attorney Kevin Wallace defended the subpoenas by arguing Ivanka Trump was a former Trump Organization executive who was the main contact with lenders for Trump’s Washington D.C. Old Post Office hotel. Wallace added that Ivanka Trump still owns properties in New York and operates business here.

Ruling from the bench after a short break, Engoron found that the state presented sufficient evidence to prove that Ivanka does business in New York.

“Ms. Trump owns property in New York and has done business in New York,” he said.

Engoron added that her testimony should not be scheduled before next Wednesday to allow her lawyers to appeal his ruling.

“A trial is a search for the truth, and the law is entitled to every person’s evidence,” Engoron said.

Judge Engoron will hear arguments Friday morning about Ivanka Trump's efforts to quash three subpoenas related to her potential testimony at her father's civil trial.

In September, the New York attorney general's office attempted to compel Ivanka Trump to testify by sending subpoenas to three corporate entities related to her. Her lawyer, Bennet Moskowitz, filed a motion last week to quash the subpoenas, which he argued lacked jurisdiction.

Ivanka Trump was originally included in the attorney general's $250 million lawsuit, along with her father and brothers, before an appeals court dismissed her from the case in June because she was no longer part of the Trump Organization by 2016.

Donald Trump, in 2014, valued his Los Angeles golf club at over $100 million more than the amount it was appraised at, according to evidence shown in court.

Trump's former tax attorney, Sheri Dillon, testified that when working on a conservation easement for the driving range at Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles in 2014, she received an appraisal that valued the entire club at $107 million.

However, the spreadsheet used to create Trump's financial statements placed the value of the golf club at $213 million that same year, according to documents entered into evidence.

Shown the document during her testimony, Dillion said she was unfamiliar with it.

"I have never seen this document. I don't even know what this is," she said when she was shown the spreadsheet, which Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney previously testified he maintained.

When state attorney Louis Solomon attempted to highlight the alleged overvaluation, their exchange grew combative.

"We have the right to treat her as a hostile witness," Solomon said -- a request that was granted by Judge Engoron.

"Did you ever discuss with anyone at the Trump Organization the valuation of [the golf club]?" Solomon asked Dillon at one point.

"I don't recall. Over the years, I am sure it came up at some point," Dillon said, though she could not recall if she directly discussed it with then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day, with Dillon's testimony scheduled to resume tomorrow morning.

Donald Trump's accounting expert snapped at a lawyer for the New York attorney general after the lawyer suggested his opinion was bought by the defense team.

As accounting expert Eli Bartov was testifying about Trump's use of disclaimers in his financial statements, state attorney Kevin Wallace interjected, saying, "This is pure speculation from someone they hired to say whatever it is they want."

Still in the witness box, Bartov began yelling at Wallace about the comment as Trump sat watching a few feet away.

"You make up allegations that never existed," Bartov shouted. "I am here to tell the truth. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for talking like that."

Bartov, in his testimony, said that Trump's use of disclaimers functioned "just like the warning from the surgeon general on a box of cigarettes."

The accounting expert said that Trump's disclaimers clearly flagged to his lenders that they should conduct their own due diligence regarding the figures, rather than rely on them at face value. Witnesses from Deutsche Bank -- Trump's primary lender during the 2010s -- previously testified that they conducted due diligence and significantly undercut the valuations Trump provided in his financial statement when deciding to offer him loans.

"I never saw anything that is clearer than that," Bartov said about the language in Trump's disclaimer clause. "Even my nine-year-old granddaughter Emma would understand this language."

In his pretrial summary judgment ruling, Judge Engoron dismissed Trump's argument that disclaimer clauses protect him from allegations of fraud. While multiple defense witnesses have attempted to rebut Engoron's opinion about Trump's use of disclaimer clauses, the judge has signaled he stands by his opinion.

"My summary judgment is the law of the case on the legal effect of this paragraph or these sentences," Engoron said in response to Bartov's testimony, adding that the clauses "would not insulate the client."

Nevertheless, Trump attorney Chris Kise requested that Engoron reconsider his finding.

"I am fairly liberal in reconsidering my opinions," Engoron said before Bartov resumed his testimony.