New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. filed a response to President Donald Trump late Monday afternoon, contesting the forum of the proceedings and arguing that grand jury subpoenas delivered to Trump, his accounting firm and other associates are not bound by the same restrictions as a criminal investigation.

Vance has already agreed to stay the subpoenas until Wednesday afternoon, an agreement that came shortly after Trump filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York arguing that the subpoenas are a politically motivated attack designed to interfere with the power of the presidency.

But in Monday's filing, the Manhattan DA urged the court not to grant Trump's emergency motion for an injunction, noting that federal courts must be careful not to interfere in state matters except when absolutely necessary.

Vance is reportedly investigating whether the Trump Organization falsified business reports, which is a crime in New York. Another subpoena from Vance's office demanded information about payments made to two women who said they had sexual relationships with Trump in the 2000s, which the president has denied.

Marc Mukasey of Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff said he and the rest of Trump's legal team will respond to Vance in writing Tuesday.

A hearing in the courtroom of U.S. Senior District Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York is set for 9:30 a.m. Wednesday.

Arguing for dismissal of the entire case along with the rejection of Trump's emergency motion, Carey Dunne, general counsel of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, wrote in Monday's memo that Trump has not shown he'll suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief.

For one thing, Dunne wrote, any financial information obtained through a grand jury subpoena would be confidential to the DA's office. He called the idea that the DA's office is trying to expose Trump's financial information "purely speculative and, frankly, outrageous," saying Trump is trying to invent a new presidential privilege around tax return privacy.

Dunne argued that Trump has not proven that sitting presidents and their associates are immune from criminal prosecutions. Even if he had, Dunne wrote, the grand jury subpoenas would still be valid.

"The question is not whether a state prosecutor can indict a sitting President," Dunne wrote, but whether Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, must comply with Vance's subpoena.

Dunne challenged several assumptions he said Trump made in his filings, writing that it isn't clear whether the Mazars subpoena will ever lead to prosecution of anyone, whether the grand jury would return an indictment on that information and whether any indictment would name Trump.