Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiff husband contends that the court erred in holding him in contempt for nonpayment of support and maintenance as the court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or find that enforcement methods would be futile. We disagree. There were sufficient reasons to presume that enforcement methods would be futile (see, Domestic Relations Law § 245; Ruggerio v Ruggerio, 173 A.D.2d 595, 597) and a hearing is not necessary absent a factual dispute (see, Bowie v. Bowie, 182 A.D.2d 1049, 1050; Rosenblitt v. Rosenblitt, 121 A.D.2d 375).
We have considered the husband's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.