NY Appeals Court Awards Trump Legal Win Same Day As Verdict

So, a New York state appeals court gave Trump a gift the same day the verdict dropped.

On Thursday, they let it be known that he can take his niece Mary Trump to court.

What’s the reason?

It’s for talking to the New York Times regarding Trump’s finances, which was violating a confidentiality clause.

The court in Manhattan found some pretty solid reasons for Trump to sue.

The fact alone that his niece broke the confidentiality rules of a 2001 settlement over his dad, Fred Trump Sr.’s estate, is reason enough.

NY Appeals Court Rules Trump Can Sue Niece Over NY Times Article

The former president scored a legal win on the day he was convicted of criminal charges in New York.https://t.co/DqIMQdMWlw

— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) June 1, 2024

Reuters reports:

A New York state appeals court said Donald Trump can sue his niece Mary Trump for giving the New York Times (NYT.N), opens new tab information for its Pulitzer Prize-winning 2018 probe into his finances and his alleged effort to avoid taxes.

The Appellate Division in Manhattan found a “substantial” legal basis for Donald Trump to claim that his niece violated confidentiality provisions of a 2001 settlement over the estate of his father, Fred Trump Sr.

A five-judge panel said it was unclear whether Mary Trump’s disclosures were subject to confidentiality, or how long both sides intended the provisions to remain in effect.

It also signaled that the former U.S. president might deserve only minimal damages, not the $100 million he sought.

“At a minimum, nominal damages may still be available on the breach of contract claim even in the absence of actual damages,” the court said.

Lawyers for Mary Trump said the lawsuit violated a state law barring frivolous cases designed to silence critics and “chill and retaliate against” their free speech. These cases are called strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs.

“Mary has made valuable contributions to the public’s knowledge of the former president with her unique perspective as a family member,” her lawyer Anne Champion said in a statement. “We are confident she will be vindicated as the case proceeds.”

Champion also said Donald Trump “can claim no injury for the publication of truthful information.”

Alina Habba, a lawyer for Donald Trump, said he looked forward to holding his niece “fully accountable for her blatant and egregious breach of contract.”

Thursday’s decision upheld a June 2023 ruling by Justice Robert Reed of the state Supreme Court.

Reed also dismissed Donald Trump’s claims against the Times and three reporters, and in January ordered him to pay $392,639 of their legal fees.

A New York appeals court ruled former President Donald Trump can sue his niece Mary Trump for violating a confidentiality agreement when she signed a settlement relating to her grandfather’s estate.

The Appellate Division in Manhattan on Thursday found there is a “substantial basis in law” for President Trump to claim that his niece violated confidentiality provisions of a 2001 settlement over the estate of his father, Fred Trump Sr.

A five-judge panel said it was unclear whether Ms. Trump’s disclosures were subject to confidentiality, or how long both sides intended the provisions to remain in effect.

While it ruled that the former president can sue, it also signaled that he might deserve only minimal damages, not the $100 million he originally sought.

“At a minimum, nominal damages may still be available on the breach of contract claim even in the absence of actual damages,” the court said.

Other courts have issued rulings in favor of the former president. In June 2023, a judge in New York sided against Ms. Trump, who appealed the ruling. The five-judge panel upheld the lower court judge’s previous ruling on Thursday.

“Issues of fact exist as to whether the information disclosed by defendant (that is the subject of this suit) or plaintiff’s prior statements (that are relied upon by defendant) are subject to the confidentiality provision,” the court said Thursday. “Because the confidentiality agreement contains no fixed duration, the court must ‘inquire into the intent of the parties’ and determine—‘if a duration may be fairly and reasonably fixed by the surrounding circumstances and the parties’ intent.’”