Earlier this month, in response to allegations of a discussion between a local real estate attorney and New York Judge Arthur Engoron about the Trump case prior to the verdict, attorneys for former President Donald Trump asked the judge to recuse himself from any continuing matters related to the case.

Judge Engoron just denied that request as the purported conversation was a "nothingburger" that was "unsolicited" and had no impact on the ultimate verdict, the Associated Press reported.

The judge, who deemed Trump guilty of civil fraud in September before the non-jury trial was conducted, ruled in February that Trump must pay more than $450 million plus daily accumulating interest and other penalties for supposedly inflating the claimed values of certain assets to obtain better terms for business loans and insurance policies.

Local attorney claimed he discussed case with judge

Local outlet WNBC reported in May that local real estate attorney Adam Leitman Bailey claimed in an on-air interview on Feb. 16, the same day as Judge Engoron's ruling, that he had discussed the case with the judge in a courthouse hallway a few weeks earlier and had provided him with advice and facts about the laws at issue.

Bailey said that he "wanted him to know what I think and why" and wanted the judge to "get it right," so he claimed he "explained to him" how the civil fraud statute worked, and added of Engoron, "He had a lot of questions, you know, about certain cases. We went over it."

A spokesperson for the judge denied any wrongdoing had occurred at that time, but the local outlet reported that the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct had opened an investigation into Bailey's claim and, subsequently, former President Trump's attorneys filed a request for Engoron to recuse himself from continuing to preside over the case.

Engoron gives his version of events for conversation with Bailey

However, in an eight-page ruling released on Thursday, Judge Engoron not only denied the recusal request from Trump's attorneys but also denigrated Bailey and dismissed his account of what supposedly occurred as highly inaccurate.

Engoron recalled being "accosted" as he left the courthouse by Bailey, who started "haranguing me" about the law, and though the judge previously viewed the attorney as a "professional acquaintance" and "distant friend," the "sudden appearance and vehement speech took me aback," so he simply informed Bailey that he was "wrong" about the law, even as Bailey was "still droning on" as he got in his vehicle and left.

The judge said he'd spent more than three years researching the law at issue before the "unpleasant occurrence" and insisted that he "did not need a landlord-tenant lawyer ranting about it," and further observed, "I did not initiate, welcome, encourage, engage in, or learn from, much less enjoy, Bailey’s tirade," nor was his ruling based on it, "as Bailey has outlandishly, mistakenly, and defamatorily claimed."

The "90-second incident" was, per Engoron, a "nothingburger," and he wrote that he "would have forgotten all about it by now had Bailey not attempted to burnish his reputation as someone who could influence judges," which he noted was potentially unethical and illegal.

The judge added that over the course of the Trump trial, he was often recognized and confronted in public by people who offered "unsolicited words" that were sometimes "complimentary" and other times "derogatory," but in all instances never impacted his rulings, and "As with my forced encounter with Bailey, I feel no need to report these fleeting incidents."

Request for recusal denied

With regard to the recusal request, Judge Engoron denied it after going over the relevant requirements and picking apart the arguments and cited examples put forward by Trump's attorneys.

He also dismissed the claim that he should recuse because the incident with Bailey was purportedly under investigation, given that "the Commission has not contacted me, nor am I aware of any such investigation," and added, "An unsubstantiated allegation of an investigation cannot require disqualification."

Engoron also rejected an alternative request from Trump's attorneys for an evidentiary hearing about Bailey's claims, as only Bailey would have standing to participate and such a hearing would "do nothing to advance the relief defendants seek herein."