NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump’s fourth attempt to delay the original defamation lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll in 2019 — before the case he lost at trial in May — was resoundingly rejected by a Manhattan judge Friday.

Trump requested to put the case on ice while he pursues an appeal of a decision by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, which rejected his position that statements he made about Carroll from the White House were protected by presidential immunity. The judge found Trump had raised the argument too late.

Kaplan, who’s blasted Trump over the years for stalling the case, said his latest motion to pause proceedings was just one more example of his delay tactics.

“Mr. Trump’s latest motion to stay — his fourth such request — is yet another such attempt to delay unduly the resolution of this matter,” Kaplan wrote.

The judge pointed out that Trump’s appeal of his decision ignored his additional findings that it would have failed on the merits anyway.

“Accordingly, this Court certifies that Mr. Trump’s appeal is frivolous [...],” Kaplan wrote.

Carroll first sued Trump in 2019 for defamation, around five months after she accused him of sexually assaulting her inside a Bergdorf Goodman changing room in the mid-1990s.

When she spoke out, Trump lambasted the writer from the White House, claiming she’d made the whole thing up. He said he couldn’t have sexually assaulted her because she was “not my type.”

A dizzying series of legal developments delayed the case and moved it from the state to federal courts when Trump argued the presidency shielded him.

The Justice Department joined Trump in that argument before and after Biden became president. The DOJ fought to take his place in the case — so Carroll would be suing the government instead of Trump the individual — which Kaplan rejected in October 2020, prompting appeals.

DOJ lawyers abandoned the effort in June, leaving Trump to argue it alone.

When New York passed the Adult Survivors Act in November, Carroll sued Trump again, this time including a battery claim — which the statute of limitations had previously barred — and another defamation claim for post-presidency comments. That case went to trial in April and featured explosive testimony, with a jury turning around a verdict in Carroll’s favor in less than three hours, finding Trump sexually abused her and awarding her $5 million in damages.

Carroll added another claim to her initial suit after Trump defamed her on CNN a day after the verdict. Trump filed a counterclaim, which Kaplan dismissed.

Kaplan on Friday rejected all of Trump’s latest arguments to delay the second trial as he beats the dead presidential immunity horse on appeal.

“In sum, Mr. Trump has not provided a single reason for the Court to find that there is any likelihood that he will succeed on appeal, let alone a ‘strong showing,’” Kaplan wrote.

“[His] loss of that defense was the product of his own decision not to raise it until the tail end of this litigation.”

Carroll’s lawyers had argued that rescheduling the trial could see her competing with the end of his campaign, other civil and criminal trials he’s facing, “the possibility of a prison sentence, and/or conceivably the start of a second Trump presidency.”

Kaplan agreed time was of the essence given Carroll and Trump’s ages. She is 79, and he is 77.

“While there is a public interest in immunizing presidents for actions properly taken within the scope of their duties, there is a public interest also in ensuring that even presidents will be held accountable for actions that ... do not come within that scope,” the judge wrote. “[Both] parties are of advanced age, and a stay of this case pending resolution of Mr. Trump’s appeal would threaten delaying any compensation to which Ms. Carroll might be entitled by at least several months, if not a year or more. The public interest therefore weighs against a stay.”

At the second trial, Carroll wants only to address damages; she’s seeking $10 million, which Trump wants to cap at $1 million. Kaplan is yet to rule on those requests and whether the former president should have to pay some of Carroll’s attorneys’ fees for forcing them to respond to “the manifest frivolity” of his arguments that have been put to bed.

Carroll and Trump’s lawyers declined to comment.

____