So trump wins partial appeal that he only has to pay 175 million, and has more time to pay it.

[onenote]

81. I don't know the percentage of cases where the bond is reduced, but wouldn't be surprised if it was substantial

in cases with judgments in excess of $100 million.

Why do I say that? Because the trend in the US over the past 25 years has been to make it easier for defendants to obtain a stay pending appeal, largely by capping the amount of required supersedeas bond. Indeed, the vast majority of states have enacted some sort of supersedeas bond cap. In Florida, for example, its $50 million, no matter how large the judgment. In some jurisdictions, it is as low as $25 million. And these jurisdictions still give courts discretion to set the bond at a lower rate or to forego requiring any bond at all.

So, while New York is one of the few states that hasn't adopted a statutory cap, the law does give the court authority to set a cap at whatever level below a 100 percent of judgment level and I would expect judges, in the current legal environment, to use that authority to set limits comparable to those that would apply in states that have set caps.

And for what its worth, I think James did a poor job opposing Trump's request for the appellate division to reduce the bond requirement. In particular, she argued that the court had no authority to reduce the level, which is just flat out contrary to the statutory language and case law.