Lawyers for Donald Trump will appear before a New York appeals court on Thursday, November 5, 2026, to request the dismissal of his May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The appeal marks an attempt to overturn the first criminal conviction of a U.S. president. Trump, who denies wrongdoing, is not expected to attend the proceedings.
The case originated from a $130,000 payment made by Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen to adult film performer Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Prosecutors argued the payment was part of a conspiracy to influence the election by silencing Daniels regarding an alleged sexual encounter with Trump, which he denies. Trump's company later reimbursed Cohen, recording the payments as legal expenses. Under New York law, falsifying records becomes a felony if done to conceal another crime.
In court filings, Trump's legal team, led by attorney Robert Giuffra Jr., argued that the case resulted from "immense political pressure" and relied on "insufficient" evidence. They contended that testimony regarding White House conversations and social media posts should have been excluded under presidential immunity, asserting that a president’s defense against personal allegations constitutes official duty. The defense also argued that the payments were legitimate legal expenses and that any "hush money" was intended to avoid family embarrassment rather than hide campaign spending.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office countered that the conviction was supported by a "mountain" of evidence and that the White House-related testimony concerned "unofficial conduct." Prosecutors described the matter as a purely private issue, arguing that discussions with advisors about personal misconduct do not qualify as immune official acts. They characterized the 2016 payment plan as a conspiracy to defraud the public and government regulators.
For the general public, the outcome clarifies the boundaries of presidential immunity—specifically whether a president's communications regarding personal scandals are "official acts" or private conduct. A ruling in favor of Trump would set a precedent regarding the scope of immunity to include personal reputation management from the White House. A ruling for the prosecution would reinforce the principle that private financial transactions made to influence elections remain subject to state criminal laws, regardless of the defendant's office.
What happens next: During the Thursday session, each side has 15 minutes to present arguments before a panel of the Appellate Division, First Department. Both parties have indicated they intend to appeal any unfavorable ruling to the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, and potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court. Additionally, a separate federal appeal regarding efforts to move the case to federal court is scheduled for oral arguments on November 16. While a federal judge, Alvin Hellerstein, previously rejected these efforts three times, Trump's team continues to pursue that parallel legal track.