Rudy Giuliani must turn over sports memorabilia and other prized possessions to two Georgia election workers who won a $148 million defamation judgment against him, including his New York City apartment, more than two dozen luxury watches and a 1980 Mercedes once owned by movie star Lauren Bacall, a judge ruled Tuesday.
But U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan also said Giuliani does not have to give the election workers three New York Yankees World Series rings or his Florida condominium — for now — noting those assets are tied up in other litigation.
The property Giuliani must relinquish is expected to fetch several million dollars for Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Wandrea ''Shaye'' Moss. They won the $148 million judgment over Giuliani's false ballot fraud claims against them related to the 2020 presidential election. They said Giuliani pushed Donald Trump's lies about the election being stolen, which led to death threats that made them fear for their lives.
Under Tuesday's order, Giuliani must relinquish within seven days his Manhattan apartment, estimated at more than $5 million, as well as his interest in about $2 million that he says Trump's 2020 presidential campaign owes him for his services.
Also on the list of assets that must be given to Freeman and Moss are a 1980 Mercedes-Benz SL 500 previously owned by Bacall; a shirt and picture signed, respectively, by Yankees legends Joe DiMaggio and Reggie Jackson; a signed Yankee Stadium picture; a diamond ring; costume jewelry and 26 watches including a Rolex, five Shinolas, two Bulovas and a Tiffany & Co.
In court documents filed earlier this year, Giuliani estimated the Mercedes was worth about $25,000, and the watches, World Series rings and costume jewelry at about $30,000. He said the value of his sports memorabilia was unknown.
One of those watches was given to Giuliani by his grandfather and he asked that he be allowed to keep it because of its sentimental value. But Liman rejected the request, saying Giuliani could have had it exempted if he had proven it was worth less than $1,000 — but he did not do so.
''The Court also does not doubt that certain of the items may have sentimental value to Defendant,'' the judge added. ''But that does not entitle Defendant to continued enjoyment of the assets to the detriment of the Plaintiffs to whom he owes approximately $150 million. It is, after all, the underlying policy of these New York statutes that ‘no man should be permitted to live at the same time in luxury and in debt.'''