Lindsay Lohan.

Ruling in a matter of first impression, New York's high court dismissed suits filed by Lindsay Lohan and the daughter of ex-mobster Sammy “The Bull” Gravano against the makers of “Grand Theft Auto V,” disagreeing with their claims that characters in the game were intended to be their look-alikes.

But an attorney for one of the plaintiff's said the New York Court of Appeals' ruling, brought under a section of New York's Civil Rights law pertaining to the “right to publicity,” is a partial victory since the panel found the state's privacy laws can be applied digital avatars of people.

The court unanimously found the “Lacey Jonas” character featured in the game amounted to “indistinct, satirical representations of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman,” affirming a ruling by the Appellate Division, First Department.

Writing for the court, Judge Eugene Fahey said the character “simply is not recognizable as plaintiff inasmuch as it merely is a generic artistic depiction of a “20-something” woman without any particular identifying physical characteristics.”

Thus, Fahey wrote, Lohan did not have grounds to sue video game developer Take-Two Interactive and its subsidiary Rockstar Games under New York's privacy laws.

The Court of Appeals' reasoning in its ruling for the Lohan case was applied to dismiss the suit by Karen Gravano, who starred in the reality TV show “Mob Wives.” Gravano also claimed her likeness was misappropriated in “Grand Theft Auto V” as a character “Andrea Bottino.”

Fahey was joined on the decisions in both cases by five other Court of Appeals judges. Judge Rowan Wilson took no part in either ruling.

Oral arguments for Lohan and Gravano's appeals were Feb. 7. Jeremy Feigelson of Debevoise & Plimpton appeared for the defendants while Frank Delle Donne of Monaco & Monaco appeared for Lohan, and Thomas Farinella of the Law Office of Thomas A. Farinella appeared for Gravano.

Feigelson declined to comment and Delle Donne did not respond to a request for comment.

While the court did not find the “Grand Theft Auto V” characters at issue could not be recognized as Lohan or Gravano, the court found a computer-generated image or a digital avatar can be categorized as a “portrait” as defined in a New York right to privacy statute that has been on the books since 1903.

In its reversal of Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Kenney's ruling denying Take-Two's motion to dismiss Lohan and Gravano's suits, the First Department found the plaintiffs' claims must fall under New York Civil Rights Law §51, which contains provisions that establish New York's right to publicity, because the game did not feature either of the plaintiffs' “name, picture or portrait.”

The appropriation of a name, picture or portrait is the first step in bringing a claim under New York's right to publicity provisions, under which plaintiffs can assert claims if their image is used without consent for advertising or trade within the state.

Lohan and Gravano did not meet this first requirement, Fahey said, since their alleged avatars are not recognizable as the plaintiffs. However, the Court of Appeals' ruling expands what can be considered a “portrait.”

In an interview, Farinella said the court's ruling goes against the defendants' argument that the First Amendment affords video games absolute protection from privacy claims. While he said he is disappointed that Gravano's lawsuit cannot move forward, Farinella said the effort was “not in vain.”

“An optimist can argue it's a split decision,” Farinella said. “They certainly didn't get what they wanted, which is First Amendment protection as to a video game.”

David Jacoby, a partner at Culhane Meadows who was not involved with either the Lohan or Gravano cases, and who has litigated on behalf of software firms, said in an email forwarded by a spokeswoman that he sees the rulings as a “good result” for video game companies, as it provides them the freedom to “paint culturally evocative images” in their games.

“But the decision also leaves the door open for individuals who are recognizably depicted without their permission in some contexts – for example, in a supposedly factually accurate historical game – to assert a claim,” Jacoby said.