Defense attorney Jesus Suarez began what is expected to be a marathon cross examination of the state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, by attempting to use his words against him.

"Historically banks have been willing to lend to high-net-worth individuals at low rates because they get repaid?" Suarez said, citing McCarty's direct examination.

"That is correct," McCarty said.

Suarez then reminded McCarty that Trump's loans were paid on time -- a point that the former president has reiterated during his appearance in court and on social media.

Suarez then asked if McCarty had charged the attorney general's office $950 per hour for his expert analysis.

"That's my standard rate, yes," said McCarty, who estimated that his total bill for his analysis was $350,000.

The state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump's lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.

McCarty's testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James' case: that Trump's misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.

State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron's earlier summary judgment order about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, "The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did."

McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump's properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

Trump attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected, arguing that McCarty was testifying about facts not established during the trial. During questioning, state attorneys declined to ask a Deutsche Bank executive if the bank would have still done business with Trump had they known his financial statements were inflated.

"They are not ill-gotten gains if the bank does not testify it would have done it differently," Kise said.

"I decided these were ill-gotten," the Judge Engoron replied.

Following Wallace's direct examination of McCarty, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began his cross-examination.

Listing companies like Marriott, Fannie Mae and AT&T, the New York attorney general's lone expert witness, Michiel McCarty, began his testimony by outlining some of the deals he worked on during his nearly 50-year career.

McCarty said that he has worked as an expert witness on "dozens of cases" and testified at 15 trials. But he acknowledged that he had limited experience with the compilation of statements of financial condition, prompting an objection from Trump's lawyer Chris Kise.

"It appears that he does not have the specific experience relevant to the purpose he is here," Kise argued.

Deemed an expert by Judge Engoron, McCarty went on to explain the report he wrote after reviewing Trump's finances.

Former Trump Organization VP David Orowitz testified about Ivanka Trump's involvement with Trump's Old Post Office property in Washington, D.C.

"Ivanka wanted me to change the language in the GAAP section. She asked that I review with you," Orowitz wrote in a 2011 email to then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, referring to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles used in the preparation of financial documents.

Defense attorneys have previously tried to downplay the extent to which Ivanka Trump was involved in the representation of Trump's finances.

Orowitz subsequently stepped down from the witness stand to make way for Michiel McCarty, the state's sole expert witness, to begin his testimony.

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.