Ivanka Trump on Thursday requested a delay in the New York civil fraud trial against her family, with her lawyer saying she would "suffer undue hardship" if she has to testify "in the middle of a school week."

"Ms. Trump, who resides in Florida with her three minor children, will suffer undue hardship if a stay is denied and she is required to testify at trial in New York in the middle of a school week, in a case she has already been dismissed from, before her appeal is heard," her attorney, Bennett Moskowitz, wrote in an appeal filed Thursday.

Trump has been ordered to testify in the $250 million fraud trial against her family, and is appealing against having to take the witness stand.

Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron rejected her bid, and she's set to testify on November 8.

But her lawyer made the Thursday filing in the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division asking to block Engoron's order until the appellate court could hear her appeal. It also asked for the trial as a whole to be delayed.

In the filing, Moskowitz wrote that Trump would "suffer undue hardship and irreparable harm" if a stay of the testimony order was not granted.

The appellate court denied the motion on Thursday evening.

Trump's planned testimony would come after her two brothers, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, took the stand on Thursday.

The pair and their father, former President Donald Trump, are co-defendants in a fraud trial brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

James' office is seeking the $250 million as penalties, accusing Trump Sr. and his two children of falsely inflating his net worth to obtain better loan terms and other financial perks.

Trump Sr. is expected to testify on November 6, two days before Ivanka Trump, who was originally also a co-defendant but was dismissed from the case.

Meanwhile, James filed a letter to the appellate court slamming Ivanka Trump's request for a stay in the testimony order, calling Moskowitz's principal arguments "utterly meritless."

"Ms. Trump's arguments are based on the false premise that witnesses with relevant, firsthand knowledge may be called to testify only if they are a 'primary actor' in the case," James wrote.