The makers of “Borat” have won a big victory in New York as a federal judge found that a New Yorker cannot sue them for using footage of him running away in terror from the title character.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska is the first on a motion to dismiss a “Borat”-related suit in New York -- another case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff -- and is probably a bad omen for four other “Borat” cases pending before the same judge.

Attorneys for Jeffrey Lemerond, the pedestrian pursued by Borat Sagdiyev down a Manhattan street, had aggressively opposed the motion, arguing that the film did not qualify for the “public interest” exception to New York's publicity rights law.

“Defendant's motion raises a critical question for this Court and for society as a whole: are there really no limits on Borat's ability to pluck otherwise anonymous citizens out of a crowd and subject them to public ridicule for profit in the name of the 'public interest'?” they asked in a court brief.

But Preska ruled that the film's “ironic commentary [on] 'modern' American culture ... clearly falls within the scope of what New York courts have held to be a matter of public interest.”

“The movie challenges its viewers to confront not only the bizarre and offensive Borat character himself, but the equally bizarre and offensive reactions he elicits from 'average' Americans,” she continued, and the scene featuring Lemerond “bears a direct relationship to the theme of 'otherness.'”

A Los Angeles judge reached similar conclusions in dismissing another "Borat" case in February 2007, finding that the film addresses issues of public interest and in particular “utilizes the reactions and statements of people such as Plaintiffs to subversively satirize the true targets of the movie: ethnocentrism, sexism, racism, and the like.”

Of the 10 “Borat” cases filed since the movie's release in October 2006, five have now been dismissed (see table). Alabama courts declined jurisdiction over the cases of two etiquette teachers depicted in the film, but they have refiled their claims in New York.

Under New York law, the nonconsensual use of a plaintiff's likeness to depict “newsworthy events or matters of public interest” does not fall within the reach of the publicity rights statute. Preska noted that the 13-second clip of Lemerond “is part of a series of clips showing Borat's first exposure to American culture that emphasizes the differences between Borat's home village and his American destination.”

The judge does not appear to be an unabashed fan of the movie, however, saying that its brand of humor “appeals to the most childish and vulgar in its viewers.”