The IAS Court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress since defendant's refusal to resume a relationship with his grown daughters from a previous marriage or to mention them to the press was not conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency ( Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 122, quoting Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 303, quoting Restatement [Second] of Torts § 46, comment d). The cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress was also properly dismissed since plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant owed them a special duty or to allege that his conduct unreasonably endangered their physical safety ( Losquadro v Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 216 AD2d 533).
It was an improvident exercise of discretion to impose sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel, however, since the action did not constitute the type of frivolous, groundless litigation envisioned by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (1). The facts of this matter do not mirror any of those in cases previously decided in this field. That the weight of authority may have favored defendant or that plaintiffs' novel claims were unlikely to succeed did not render plaintiffs' conduct frivolous ( see, Matter of Bozer v Higgins, 204 AD2d 979).