Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 8, 1993, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 28, 1993, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated April 28, 1993, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The appellant contends that it was improper for the Supreme Court to deny his request for a modification of his child support obligations without a hearing. We disagree, and therefore, affirm, but for a reason different than that stated by the Supreme Court.
It is axiomatic that a court may deny a motion without a hearing if the movant fails to present facts showing that there is a factual dispute requiring a hearing to resolve (see, People v. Gruden, 42 N.Y.2d 214; see also, Zioncheck v. Zioncheck, 102 A.D.2d 957). The papers submitted by the appellant failed to make any showing that he is actually paying more than his agreed-upon 60% share of the children's expenses. The appellant also failed to demonstrate that the parties agreed to such a hearing without the need to make such a showing (cf., Kleinberg v. Gershman, 116 A.D.2d 555). He thus failed to show that there was any factual dispute which required a hearing to resolve.
We have examined the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or academic. Rosenblatt, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.