NEW YORK >> Some judges in a New York appeals court appeared receptive Thursday to possibly reversing or reducing a civil fraud judgment that stands to cost Donald Trump nearly $500 million. One judge called the former president’s penalty “troubling” and wondered if the state’s policing of private business was “deterrence” or “mission creep.”

A five-judge panel in the state’s intermediate appeals court in Manhattan quizzed lawyers representing Trump and the New York attorney general’s office during oral arguments in the Republican presidential nominee’s fight to get the Feb. 16 verdict overturned.

At times the judges appeared dubious of Trump’s side, too. Appeals court judges often ask pointed questions of both sides to test their arguments.

The case

Trump is asking the court to reverse Judge Arthur Engoron’s ruling that Trump lied for years about his wealth on paperwork given to banks, insurers and others to make deals and secure loans. The verdict cut to the core of Trump’s wealthy, businessman persona. Three of the five judges who heard Thursday’s arguments must agree in order to alter the outcome.

Trump did not attend the hearing.

In the past, Trump has decried the lawsuit’s outcome as “election interference” and accused Engoron of punishing him for “having built a perfect company.”

The appeals court, known as the Appellate Division, typically rules about a month after arguments, meaning a decision could come before Election Day, Nov. 5. It could uphold the trial verdict, reduce or overturn it.

Arguments

Trump lawyer D. John Sauer argued that the lawsuit brought by Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, stretched the state’s consumer protection laws, insinuating the government into transactions where there were “no victims” and “no complaints.”

Trump did business with “sophisticated counterparties” that performed their own due diligence rather than relying solely on Trump’s financial statements — documents that Engoron ruled wildly inflated his net worth.

The state’s deputy solicitor general, Judith Vale, countered that “there was absolutely a public impact and a public interest here,” noting that lenders including Deutsche Bank incurred undue risk based on Trump’s representations.

Judges’ questions

But Judge Peter H. Moulton questioned if James’ office was engaging in “mission creep,” and whether the law she sued Trump under had “morphed into something that it was not meant to do.” At the same time, Moulton suggested the lawsuit and actions like it may deter similar actions going forward, reasoning that “in the future, some deal might not go down well and someone would be harmed by that.”

Judge John Higgitt asked if the appeals court should consider “guardrails” to prevent James from “going into an area that wasn’t intended for her jurisdiction.”

Later, Moulton questioned Vale about Engoron’s hefty punishment, observing that “the immense penalty in this case is troubling.”