Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani attends a ceremony in Zucotti Park, organized by the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, on the 19th Anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, New York, NY, September 11, 2020 (Anthony Behar/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images).
Rudy Giuliani appeared in a New York City courtroom on Thursday to explain why he has failed to surrender valuable items as part of a $148 million defamation judgment owed to two Georgia election workers he defamed following the 2020 presidential election.
By the end of the hearing, however, the judge overseeing the matter had little patience for the former federal prosecutor’s excuses and offered little in the way of leeway — ordering Giuliani to surrender his 1980 Mercedes-Benz SL500 to the plaintiffs by Monday of next week.
The in-person hearing was ordered by U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman after attorneys representing Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss complained in a motion that Giuliani had “secreted away” all of the valuable items out of his Manhattan apartment in the weeks before he was required to turn over control of the residence and several identified pieces of personal property.
“[W]hen the Receivers’ representatives were finally granted access to the New York Apartment, they learned for the first time upon entering that Defendant had moved virtually all of its contents out approximately four weeks ago — something that neither Defendant nor Defendant’s counsel had bothered to mention,” a letter motion filed earlier this week reads. “Save for some rugs, a dining room table, some stray pieces of small furniture and inexpensive wall art, and a handful of smaller items like dishes and stereo equipment, the Apartment has been emptied of all of its contents.”
The scarce state of the Madison Avenue co-op apartment — which is valued somewhere between $5 and $6 million on its own — almost immediately led to a tense proceeding in the Southern District of New York on Wednesday afternoon.
Liman described the notion that the former mayor of New York City does not know the whereabouts of certain assets as “farcical,” according to a courtroom report by Just Security fellow Adam Klasfeld.
Giuliani, for his part, rebuffed the claims — in-court and out of court.
“My apartment was filled with belongings and they just lied,” he said on his way into the building in response to a series of questions by New York City-based Fox flagship WNYW reporter Linda Schmidt. “All the things that were appropriate were there. And the apartment was pretty full with things. So, they’re lying completely.”
The defendant went on to say there were several pieces of furniture left inside “every room” of his former residence.
“Every bit of property that they want is available if they are entitled to it,” Giuliani continued. “Now, the law says they’re not entitled to a lot of them. For example, they want my grandfather’s watch, which is 150 years old. That’s a bit of an heirloom. Usually you don’t get those — unless you’re involved in a political persecution. In fact, having me here today is like a political persecution.”
Giuliani struck a slightly less angry tone inside — complaining to the judge directly that he had been “treated rudely” by the plaintiffs over the asset turnover situation, according to an in-court report by New York City-based The CW affiliate WPIX.
The court was not taken with the complaints.
At one point, Giuliani’s attorney, Ken Caruso, said the request for the aforementioned watch was “vindictive.”
“Oh, that’s ridiculous,” the judge reportedly replied — adding that family heirlooms are used to settle court-ordered debts “every day.”
“If they owe a debt, they have to pay the debt,” Liman went on. “The law is the law. I don’t apply it differently to your client.”
The attorney representing Freeman and Moss insisted the efforts to conceal and keep valuables went beyond the grandfather’s watch — and accused Giuliani of stonewalling when asked to turn over various belongings.
“This isn’t just a discovery posture anymore,” Aaron Nathan told the court at one point. “He doesn’t have a possessory right anymore…We’ve asked over and over where this stuff is, and he refused to answer.”
In the end, the judge lost patience with the defendant’s excuses and efforts to get around the late October court order that demanded an enumerated list of highly valuable items be transferred to the two women.
“He has no choice but to comply,” Liman said. “He is under an unqualified obligation to deliver all of the receivership property to the receiver.”
After Caruso attempted one final bit of argumentation about a possibly alternative understanding of the law, the judge said there was no ambiguity in the earlier order and suggested sanctions might be in the offing should Giuliani further ignore the demands.
And then there’s the car.
Outside the courtroom, before the proceedings, Giuliani told the press that his Mercedes had never been in the Empire State — that it had only ever been in Florida. This was an apparent argument that, perhaps, the court could not enforce the order to turn the vehicle over.
The court, a bit more than skeptical of the claims advanced by Giuliani, reiterated that the car was, in fact, subject to the order — as the order notes.
“When is he going to deliver the title document and keys?” Liman asked Caruso near the end of the proceeding.
To which Giuliani’s lawyer replied: “Promptly.”
“Monday,” the judge said.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
