The IAS Court, in denying leave to amend, correctly determined that the proposed counterclaims were merely a disingenuous attempt to assert a negligent supervision claim against plaintiff natural guardian in contravention of well-settled New York law, which recognizes that a claim for negligent supervision of a child, however worded, is not a viable cause of action cognizable at law ( Holodook v Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35; Franklin v Krumanocker, 114 A.D.2d 611). Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-2013 (h) (1) impose nondelegable duties upon defendants-appellants to keep their premises in good repair and to remove or cover lead paint therein ( Mas v Two Bridges Assocs., 75 N.Y.2d 680, 687; Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 212 A.D.2d 38, 46).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.