—[*1] Akerman Senterfitt LLP, New York (Donald N. David of counsel), for appellant. Elayne Kesselman, New York, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered July 19, 2010, which denied defendant's motion for a downward modification of his maintenance and child support obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant demonstrated neither extreme hardship to warrant a downward modification of his maintenance obligations (see Sheila C. v Donald C., 5 AD3d 123 [2004]; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [1]), nor a substantial, unanticipated and unreasonable change in his circumstances necessitating a reduction in child support (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [2] [i]; Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 212-213 [1977]). The motion court's skepticism of defendant's statements reflect the gaps in his evidence, rather than any bias against him. Furthermore, contrary to defendant's contention, a hearing on the motion was not required in light of his inability to raise a genuine question of fact (see Young v Young, 223 AD2d 358 [1996]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.