31 NY3d 988
NY
2018

Karen Gravano, Appellant, v Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York

March 29, 2018

31 NY3d 988 | 2018 NY Slip Op 02207

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, May 23, 2018.

Argued February 7, 2018; decided March 29, 2018

Gravano v Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 142 AD3d 776, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Law Office of Thomas A. Farinella, PC, New York City (Thomas A. Farinella of counsel), for appellant.

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York City (Jeremy Feigelson, Jared I. Kagan and Alexandra P. Swain of counsel), for respondents.

Patrick S. Kabat, The First Amendment and the Arts Project, The Spangenberg Center for Law, Technology & The Arts, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio, for Jarryd Huntley, amicus curiae.

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York City (Robert D. Balin and Samuel M. Bayard of counsel), and Los Angeles, California (Kelli L. Sager of counsel), for The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. and another, amici curiae.

Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C. (Kenneth L. Doroshow and Devi M. Rao of counsel), and Stanley Pierre-Louis, Entertainment Software Association, Washington, D.C., for Entertainment Software Association, amicus curiae.

Dentons US LLP, New York City (Michael A. Bamberger and Richard M. Zuckerman of counsel), for American Booksellers Association and others, amici curiae.

Hartman & Winnicki, P.C., Ridgewood, New Jersey (Daniel L. Schmutter of counsel), and Eugene Volokh, Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, California, for Eric M. Freedman and others, amici curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs. A computer-generated image may constitute a “portrait” within the meaning of Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 (see Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 31 NY3d 111, 121-122 [2018] [decided herewith]). Plaintiff, however, is not recognizable from the images at issue here, namely, the “Antonia Bottino” avatar in the video game in question (see Cohen v Herbal Concepts, 63 NY2d 379, 384 [1984]).

In view of our determination, we do not address plaintiff‘s additional contentions.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Feinman concur; Judge Wilson taking no part.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.