Reading some of the prior cases under Exec. Law § 63(12) indicates to me that Trump is in serious hot water with that claim by the NY AG.
Here is a quote from a 1974 case against a company that was accused of running a pyramid scheme for selling "dealerships" to sign up advertisers for a coupon and advert book:
Deliberately vague and misleading statements made to prospects to induce them to listen to a sales pitch have been condemned by this court (see Matter of Lefkowitz v. E.F.G. Baby Prods. Co., 40 A.D.2d 364, 368) and others as creating an atmosphere conducive to fraud, if not fraudulent in and of themselves ( Matter of People v. Compact Assoc., 22 A.D.2d 129, 131, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 758). The operating manual urges dealers not to go into details in contacting prospects but to "Use the Curiosity Approach * * * tell him you have seen a money tree and would like for him to take a look at it. Use the Advice Approach. * * * Tell your guest that you have seen the most fantastic opportunity of your lifetime and you would like him to attend a meeting with you and give you his personal opinion. This is an effective method for women approaching men, employees approaching employers, and young men approaching older men." Obviously since the dealers are already part of Bull, they would not be seeking advice at all but, with respondents' coaching, would be misleading prospects and using false pretenses to lure them to the "opportunity meeting." (See Executive Law, § 63, subd. 12; Matter of Lefkowitz v. E.F.G. Baby Prods. Co., supra.) Such conduct is prima facie fraudulent.
Trump's misvaluations of his various properties - even setting Mar-a-Lago to one side - were certainly misleading statements made to others to induce them to do something Trump wanted them to do.
Furthermore, this language more or less describes Trump's favorite selling device of "truthful hyperbole" which plays on the listener's desires and curiosity without giving them concise, truthful, information.
This is a rather broad statute - and whether it should be narrowed is a matter of policy discussion to be taken up with the NY legislature - however, it does seem to apply in Trump's case.
So, the fact that the NY AG is going after Trump may be politically motivated, but there is almost certainly sufficient underlying conduct to justify the bringing of the case, notwithstanding the motivation for bringing the case.
I wait to see if the NY Court of Appeals will correct me.