Donald Trump’s sentencing in his Manhattan hush money criminal trial has been postponed until after the November election.

Justice Juan Merchan of Friday delayed the sentencing to 26 November, citing “the unique time frame this matter currently finds itself in” among his reasons.

Lawyers for Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, have used several legal manoeuvres to delay the sentencing, which was scheduled for 18 September.

A New York jury convicted Trump in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, the first time a sitting or former president has been convicted of a crime.

Judge Merchan wrote that the case demands “a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury”.

“Their verdict must be respected and addressed in a manner that is not diluted by the enormity of the upcoming presidential election,” he said, setting sentencing to exactly three weeks after the 5 November election.

Trump could face a sentence of up to four years in prison, but Justice Merchan also has the discretion to impose a punishment of a fine, probation, or a short jail term.

Trump has maintained that he did nothing wrong and called the trial a “disgrace”.

The original sentencing date was July. Trump’s lawyers delayed that by arguing a US Supreme Court ruling that granted presidents some immunity from criminal prosecution affected the Manhattan case.

Justice Merchan granted the delay so that the parties could prepare arguments on the effects of the Supreme Court ruling.

A decision on the implications will come on 12 November.

Justice Merchan dismissed some arguments made by Trump’s lawyers to delay as “unsubstantiated grievances … that do not merit this Court’s attention”.

But he wrote that sentencing hearings are routinely delayed in other cases for reasons like personal circumstances to scheduling conflicts.

“Given the unique facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason why this Defendant should be treated differently than any other,” Justice Merchan said.

He added that his decision to delay “should dispel any suggestion” that the court would have made a decision that would be seen in support of “any political party or any candidate for any office”.