Attorneys for former President Donald Trump will return to court Thursday, seeking to reverse the ruling from a New York judge that held him liable for business fraud and ordered him to pay $454 million.

Lawyers will present oral arguments before an intermediate appeals court in New York, following a February ruling from Judge Arthur Engoron that found Trump liable for frauds that Engoron said "shock the conscience."

Trump, his eldest sons, and two top Trump Organization executives exaggerated Trump's wealth to secure better terms from lenders, Engoron found during an 11-week trial in Lower Manhattan.

In a written submission to the New York Appellate Division's First Department prior to Thursday's hearing, Trump's attorneys pressed many of the same arguments they made during the trial, insisting that New York Attorney General Letitia James misused the law to bring a political case, and arguing that Trump undervalued, not overvalued, his assets.

"President Trump stands among the most visionary and iconic real estate developers in American history," the defense filing said. "As trial evidence highlighted, banks and lenders vied eagerly for his business. They acknowledged his unique 'vision' and unparalleled 'expertise,' and they recognized that dealing with him would deliver 'tremendous' value."

The attorney general's office said it was not required to prove any lender was harmed.

"Indeed, one of [the law's] core remedial purposes is to protect the honesty and integrity of commercial marketplaces in New York by stopping fraudulent and illegal practices before they cause financial losses to market participants or broader harms to the public," the office wrote in a submission to the appellate court.

The attorney general's office argued that Engoron correctly decided Trump and his codefendants "used a variety of deceptive strategies to vastly misrepresent the values of nearly all the assets and asset categories," inflating his net worth by as much as $2.2 billion.

Engoron, in his ruling, determined that Trump valued his apartment as if its square footage was triple its actual size; that he valued rent regulated apartments as if they were unregulated; and that he valued his Mar-a-Lago estate as if deed restrictions did not exist.