Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs to the defendants.

This action arises from proceedings that are currently pending in an action for divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant Janice Mary Lazich (see, Lazich v. Lazich, 189 A.D.2d 750 [decided herewith]). The remaining defendants are the members of the law firm representing the wife in the matrimonial action. In essence, the husband has alleged that certain actions taken by the wife and her law firm during the pendency of the divorce action amount to fraud, conspiracy to defraud, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Judiciary Law § 487.

An essential element of fraud is reliance by a complaining party upon false statements knowingly made by the defendant (see, Jo Ann Homes v. Dworetz, 25 N.Y.2d 112; Brown v. Lockwood, 76 A.D.2d 721). All the statements and actions complained of were undertaken in the course of adversarial proceedings and were fully controverted. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot and has not asserted the requisite reliance required for fraud. As there was no fraud, there could be no conspiracy to defraud.

In addition, all the statements and conduct complained of were well within the bounds of the adversarial proceeding and were not outrageous or egregious in any way. Therefore, they do not support a cause of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress (see, Freihofer v. Hearst Corp., 65 N.Y.2d 135) or negligent infliction of emotional distress (see, Johnson v State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 378) or constitute a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see, Michalic v. Klat, 128 A.D.2d 505; Wiggin v. Gordon, 115 Misc.2d 1071). Further, the conduct of neither party warranted sanctions under 22 N.Y.CRR subpart 130-1 (see, Miller v. Keeffe, 164 A.D.2d 933).

Although this action is without merit, the litigious conduct of the plaintiff is not sufficient to warrant an injunction preventing further action without leave of court (see, e.g., Martin-Trigona v. Capital Cities/ABC, 145 Misc.2d 405; Matter of Winters v. Gould, 143 Misc.2d 44; Muka v. Hancock, Estabrook, Ryan, Shove Hust, 120 Misc.2d 146).

The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.