A federal judge in New York on Tuesday ordered Rudy Giuliani to place numerous assets, including cash, jewelry and his New York apartment, into a receivership controlled by two former Georgia election workers as they seek to collect a $148 million defamation claim against the former attorney to Donald Trump.

The 24-page ruling orders Giuliani to place the assets into a receivership within seven days. But U.S. District Court Judge Lewis J. Liman of New York ordered the “immediate turnover” of Giuliani’s apartment on the Upper East Side, which was previously listed for sale.

Liman also orders Giuliani to take legal steps that would allow the former election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, to seek an estimated $2 million in legal fees that Giuliani has said he is owed by Trump’s campaign organization and the Republican National Committee for his work leading Trump’s post-2020 election legal challenges.

Advertisement

That figure came from Giuliani’s sworn testimony in his since-dismissed bankruptcy case. The former New York mayor testified in a Feb. 7 hearing that the Trump campaign and the RNC were supposed to “split” his legal fees on behalf of Trump — though in a Feb. 27 court filing, Giuliani suggested the claim was against Trump personally. Giuliani testified that he had submitted an invoice for those fees but was never paid.

The dismissal of the bankruptcy case — which paused legal proceedings against Giuliani — paved the way for Freeman and Moss and a litany of other creditors to immediately file claims to seek his cash and assets in court. They could also seek any major debts owed to Giuliani.

The decision comes 10 months after a federal jury in D.C. found Giuliani guilty of defamation when he falsely claimed Freeman and Moss committed election fraud while they were counting ballots in Fulton County, Ga., on Election Day in 2020. The baseless attack, echoed repeatedly by Giuliani, Trump and other Trump allies, came as the former president and his supporters sought to overturn his narrow election loss in Georgia.

Advertisement

Freeman and Moss, who is her daughter, have testified that Giuliani’s claim that they rigged the election against Trump prompted a life-altering torrent of death threats and other racist abuse that forced them into hiding. The nearly $150 million claim awarded to them by a jury in December 2023 puts them at the top of the list of more than a dozen creditors seeking to collect from Giuliani, who has faced a litany of lawsuits and charges tied to his post-2020 work for Trump.

Giuliani, who was permanently disbarred in D.C. last month over his 2020 election claims, is also facing criminal charges in Georgia and Arizona as part of an alleged conspiracy to overturn Trump’s election loss in those states four years ago. He had pleaded not guilty in both cases and has continued to claim the 2020 election was “stolen.”

Attorneys for the election workers had long signaled that they would try to collect on the Trump legal fees. Earlier this month, Giuliani sought to block them, asking the judge to delay any action on that front until Nov. 6, the day after Election Day. He suggested Freeman and Moss would use the potential lawsuit for “improper, political (or, at least, collateral) purpose” and create the “confusing” and “inaccurate” appearance that Giuliani was suing Trump and create a “media frenzy.”

Advertisement

“The profound irony manifest in [Giuliani]’s alleged concern is not lost on the court,” Liman wrote in his Tuesday order. “By his own admission, [Giuliani] defamed [Freeman and Moss] by perpetuating lies about them.”

The judge ruled that the two women “are entitled as a matter of law” to pursue the legal fees owed to Giuliani and that there is “no risk the public could be misled into believing” Giuliani was suing Trump or his campaign. “The risk — if any — that the public would be misled could come only from the Defendant himself,” Liman wrote, or others who seek to prevent Freeman and Moss from pursuing “a claim for compensation that justly belongs, and is owed, to them.”

A spokesman for Giuliani did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The road to justice for Ruby and Shaye has been long, but they have never wavered,” Aaron Nathan, a lawyer representing Freeman and Moss, said in a statement. “Last December, a jury delivered a powerful verdict in their favor, and we’re proud that today’s ruling makes that verdict a reality.”

Advertisement

“This outcome should send a powerful message that there is a price to pay for those who choose to intentionally spread disinformation,” Nathan added.

In addition to the Trump legal fees and his New York apartment, Giuliani was ordered to turn over a collection of several watches, including items given to him by foreign leaders in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks; several pieces of sports memorabilia, including a signed Joe DiMaggio shirt; and a 1980 Mercedes once owned by actress Lauren Bacall.

The order also demands Giuliani turn over his television, “various items of furniture” and an unspecified amount of cash in three Citibank checking accounts.

Freeman and Moss have also sought to gain control of Giuliani’s Palm Beach, Fla., condo — but Liman deferred a decision on that property until an Oct. 28 hearing. Giuliani has sought to protect that property from creditors by claiming it as his full-time residence.

Advertisement

The judge also deferred a decision on Giuliani’s collection of World Series rings. Giuliani listed the rings as assets in his bankruptcy case, but his son, Andrew, has filed a motion to block the items from being seized by creditors, claiming his father previously gave them to him.

In his ruling, Liman noted that Giuliani had asked that some items — including a watch given to him by his grandfather — be exempted from seizure as he seeks to overturn the defamation verdict against him. But the judge said Giuliani never sought a stay of the judgment that could have protected his assets, including his grandfather’s watch.

“The watch may be distinctive to Defendant as an item of sentimental value, but it is not distinctive to the law,” the judge wrote.