ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, on the law, and the third cause of action is reinstated; and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its first cause of action by providing sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant violated the by-laws when she installed a stone patio in her backyard without first obtaining the plaintiff's written approval (see generally, Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851). In opposition, the defendant failed to provide evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
The Supreme Court improperly searched the record and dismissed the plaintiff's third cause of action to recover costs and for an attorney's fee, as those issues were not before the court in connection with the summary judgment motion (Sadkin v. Raskin Rappaport, P.C., 271 A.D.2d 272, 273; Conroy v. Swartout, 135 A.D.2d 945, 947; cf., Marshall v. New York City Health Hospitals Corp., 186 A.D.2d 542, 543-544). Accordingly, we have not reviewed the merits of the third cause of action.
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.