Court rules co-ops can't limit cable cos., but can make them conform aesthetically.

Although a recent New York State Supreme Court decision prevents co-op corporations from maintaining an exclusive relationship with only one cable television vendor, it allows them to require that any cable TV vendor installing equipment in their buildings conform to reasonable aesthetic criteria, real estate attorney Edward T. Braverman reports. Braverman heads represents some 85 upscale co-ops in the city.

He noted that by assuring a co-op corporation it can exercise some control over the appearance of cable installation work in its building, the decision allays fears co-op owners have had about cable TV vendors whose installation work they regard as aesthetically inferior.

The court held that a co-op may not prevent competing cable companies from providing cable services to tenants in the building who want their services, Braverman explained.

Braverman said that the decision, written by Judge Carmen Ciparick, holds that an exclusive contract with one vendor for cable service in a co-op building could violate public policy.

Judge Ciparick, in finding for the defendant in 861h Street Tenants Corp. v. N. Y. C. Commission on Cable Television, upheld a decision by the Commission that requires co-ops to allow several vendors to provide cable service to residents in their buildings. The Judge observed that "there is a valid public purpose in insuring that co-op residents have a meaningful choice between competing cable systems."

She explained that when a co-op corporation is required to permit a number of vendors to provide cable service, "the residents may obtain the benefits of price competition as well as the benefits of receiving cable stations which are offered by one competitor but not the other."

The suit was brought as an Article 78 proceeding by a number of co-ops to prevent Paragon Cable and Time Warner Cable of New York City from having access to their buildings to install its cable television facilities and equipment.

Time Warner had been providing the co-ops with cable TV services, and its installations were initially acceptable to the owners because the facilities were concealed and were not obtrusive. But in 1987, Time Warner began to upgrade its equipment by installing cable behind a plastic molding in hallways and on the exterior of the buildings.

The owners, Braverman explained, opposed this method because they regarded it as "unsightly, unaesthetic and, unnecessary."

As a result, the owners contracted with the Liberty Cable Company, Inc., to provide them with cable TV services. Liberty is a master antenna TV company which distributes its signal by a microwave transmission. The co-op owners only wanted Time Warner to wire those portions of the building where residents had specifically requested the Time Warner service.

Time Warner objected to the restriction and filed applications with the city Commission on Cable Television seeking orders of entry. The commission agreed with Time Warner and issued the orders of entry. It held that the apartment owners were landlords within the meaning of Executive Law Section 828 and, therefore, could be compelled to provide access to Time Warner to set up cable TV facilities in the buildings and upgrade its installations.

Although the court upheld the commission's decision, Braverman points out that the decision still is a decisive victory for New York City co-ops in that the ruling reaffirmed a requirement that the installation of cable facilities conform to reasonable conditions that protect the functioning and appearance of the building.