Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant's motion to amend the answer to assert a counterclaim for contribution against the father of the infant plaintiff. The undisputed facts submitted on the motion to amend show that defendant's cause of action against the father, based on negligent supervision of the infant plaintiff, lacks merit (see, Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35). This case does not fall within the exception to the rule set forth in Holodook (supra) because the bicycle operated by the infant was not a dangerous instrument (see, Nolechek v. Gesuale, 46 N.Y.2d 332; Steinberg v. Cauchois, 249 App. Div. 518; see also, Parsons v. Wham-O, Inc., 150 A.D.2d 435; Young v. Dalidowicz, 92 A.D.2d 242).