(citing Brooks, who cited the AP study).

The AP study said that in cases where the defendant was found guilty of violating New York's Executive Law 63(12), the only cases where the court ordered dissolution of the company involved "real victims," so if the court ordered dissolution of Trump's business in this case, it would be unprecedented and unfair to Trump.

In the end, in Trump's case the judge did NOT order the dissolution of his business, so citing that study to say the ruling against Trump was unfair doesn't hold any water.

Conflating that study with the completely unrelated seizure of assets related to the fine also doesn't hold water because that's not what the study looked at.

I'm not an expert in this area - Trump may very well be being treated unfairly in the size of the fine.  My only point was that a study about a ruling the judge didn't make in the end is not evidence to support a claim of unprecedented treatment.