Read your own article.Trump hating AP reviewed all 70 years of cases under this statute, and James' use of this statute was unprecedented.
Dissolving Trump's business empire would stand apart in history of NY fraud law
AP’s review of nearly 150 cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors.apnews.com
An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.
It's not the first big business to be charged under the statute. In fact, it's not even the first time Trump has run afoul of the statute. The only thing unprecedent would have been the dissolvement of the whole company without a showing of victims or major losses. (lost interest amount to major losses but fine).
The point is the punishment didn't make it in the ruling. So what's your point of contention?