Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been held in contempt of court for failing to comply with orders to turn over assets to compensate election workers he defamed. A Manhattan federal court hearing this week, which spanned two days, underscored Giuliani's repeated refusal to honor court-mandated property transfers.
Giuliani's legal battles stem from a 2023 jury verdict that found him liable for defamation against Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, two Georgia election workers. The jury awarded them $148 million in damages.
Following the verdict, Giuliani filed for bankruptcy, but the case was later dismissed. This allowed a separate court to address Giuliani's duty to transfer assets. Attorneys for Freeman and Moss emphasized Giuliani's obligation to hand over his property, including a 1980 Mercedes Benz, a New York penthouse, and valuable memorabilia, but noted that no such transfer has occurred.
Giuliani's defense during the contempt hearing involved claims of missing or misplaced assets. He testified he's unable to locate specific items, like a signed Joe DiMaggio Yankees jersey, despite previously displaying it in his apartment. The court heard evidence that some of his belongings had been removed from his apartment before the election workers' attorneys arrived.
While Giuliani has surrendered some items—including several watches and a diamond ring—he has yet to fulfill obligations related to the title of his convertible, the keys to his Manhattan apartment, and other vital documentation. This has led to significant hurdles for the women attempting to liquidate the assets to recover the awarded damages.
The court has scheduled a separate contempt hearing in Washington D.C. for January 10, addressing Giuliani's alleged violations of a separate court order pertaining to repeating defamatory statements about the election workers. Furthermore, a trial later this month will determine if Giuliani can claim a homestead exemption for his Florida condominium.
Giuliani's actions raise concerns about compliance with court rulings and the complexities surrounding asset recovery in high-profile defamation cases. The case highlights the legal repercussions for individuals who make false and damaging claims, particularly in politically sensitive contexts.
