Unfortunately for Trump, in his summary judgement, the judge ruled this is not a legal defense

The judge gave three reasons for this.

1. The disclaimer doesn't say what the defendants claim it does

2. It's not an enforceable disclaimer and

3. You still have to reveal facts that are known to you, even if you add a disclaimer.

https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1721547621632745814?s=20

However, defendants' reliance on these "worthless" disclaimers is worthless. The clause does not use the words "worthless" or " useless" or "ignore" or "disregard" or any similar words. It does not say, "the values herein are what I think the properties will be worth in ten or more years." Indeed, the quoted language uses the word "current" no less than five times, and the word "future" zero times.

Additionally, as discussed supra, a defendant may not rely on a disclaimer for misrepresentation of facts peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge. Basis Yield Alpha Fund at 136. Here, as the valuations of the subject properties are, obviously, peculiarly within defendants' knowledge, their reliance on them is to no avail.

Furthermore, "[t]his ' special facts doctrine' applies regardless of the level of sophistication of the parties." TIAA Glob. Invs. LLC v One Astoria Square LLC, 127 AD3d 75, 87 (1st Dept 2015) (emphasis added) (holding disclaimer does not bar liability for fraud where facts were peculiarly within disclaiming party's knowledge). Thus, the "worthless clause" does not say what defendants say it says, does not rise to the level of an enforceable disclaimer, and cannot be used to insulate fraud as to facts peculiarly within defendants' knowledge, even vis-a-vis sophisticated recipients.

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2023/2023-ny-slip-op-33314-u.html

Here's the ruling. Starting on page 12 of the ruling you can read the full section discussing this including the language of the disclaimer.