New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron, who presided over the civil fraud trial involving former President Trump, has come under scrutiny for his handling of the case. Engoron, a longtime judge with a background in music and driving taxis, has faced criticism for his alleged bias and lack of credibility.
Engoron, who attended The Wheatley School in New York, has remained active in his alma mater’s alumni association, even authoring an online newsletter for the group. However, his recent actions as a judge have raised concerns among conservatives.
After attending Columbia University and the New York University School of Law, Engoron began his legal career at Olwine, Connelly, Chase, O’Donnell & Weyher. He later joined Pryor, Cashman, Sherman & Flynn, but left the firm to pursue a career in the music industry. This decision surprised many, as Engoron was the only lawyer at the firm to leave for such a reason.
Engoron eventually returned to the legal profession and became a principal law clerk for New York Supreme Court Justice Martin Schoenfield. In 2003, he became a judge on the New York City Civil Court and later served as an acting justice of the state’s trial court. In 2015, he ran unopposed for a permanent spot on the court.
However, it was Engoron’s recent ruling in the civil fraud trial against Trump that drew the most attention. He barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and ordered him to pay $355 million in damages. The case was initiated by Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who accused Trump of inflating his assets and committing fraud.
In his ruling, Engoron criticized Trump’s behavior during the trial, claiming that he rarely answered questions directly and frequently went off-topic. This led Engoron to question Trump’s credibility and cast doubt on his defense.
Throughout the trial, Trump and his allies voiced their dissatisfaction with Engoron’s handling of the case. They accused him of bias and claimed that he was attempting to harm Trump for political reasons. House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik even filed an ethics complaint against Engoron, alleging inappropriate bias and judicial intemperance.
In response to Engoron’s ruling, Attorney General James claimed victory and hailed it as a “tremendous victory” for the state and the nation. However, conservatives remain critical of Engoron’s conduct and question his impartiality as a judge.
As the controversy surrounding Engoron continues, conservatives are calling for a fair and unbiased judiciary that upholds the principles of justice and the rule of law. They argue that judges should not let their personal biases interfere with their duty to administer justice fairly and impartially. Only time will tell if these concerns will be addressed and if Engoron’s reputation as a judge will be restored.
