GORDON v. GORDON

Defendant demonstrated neither extreme hardship to warrant a downward modification of his maintenance obligations ( see Sheila C. v Donald C., 5 AD3d 123; 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). 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).