This matter has been before us previously ( 147 A.D.2d 419).
Respondent failed to meet his burden of proving a substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of child support (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Matter of Steinberg v. Steinberg, 18 N.Y.2d 492). There being only a modest fluctuation in respondent's adjusted gross income from 1986 through 1989, we agree with Family Court's finding that his earning capacity had not diminished, and with its apportionment of the parties' respective responsibilities for child support in accordance with their means (see, Polite v. Polite, 127 A.D.2d 465, 467; Matter of Buley v. Buley, 142 A.D.2d 814). Nor did respondent set forth new facts or information that could not have been readily and with due diligence made a part of the original motion, and thus Family Court properly denied his motion to reargue or renew (Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 548, 568). There was no showing of bias requiring recusal ( 22 NYCRR 100.3 [c] [1]).
We have considered respondent's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.