Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The only claim of negligence in the plaintiffs' complaint and bill of particulars was that the infant plaintiff fell out of a tree and injured herself due to negligent supervision. The infant plaintiff was a guest of the Howards, who leased the property on which the tree stood from the Hedbergs.
The law is clear that an absentee landlord is not liable for a lessee's negligent supervision of an invited guest (see, DelaCruz v Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 176 A.D.2d 673; Cavanaugh v Knights of Columbus Council 4360, 142 A.D.2d 202; Herndon v Jennings, 101 A.D.2d 688; Shaya v Piacquaddio, 67 A.D.2d 969). The Howards failed to demonstrate that further discovery would give rise to identifiable triable issues of fact (see, Grosvenor v Niemand Bros., 149 A.D.2d 459, 460-461). Finally, the Hedbergs' submission of the pleadings in the action, along with their attorney's affirmation, was adequate to establish their entitlement to summary judgment where, as here, the issue is one of law rather than of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 325; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Jones v City of Albany, 128 A.D.2d 1017; Marinas of Future v City of New York, 87 A.D.2d 270). Thompson, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.