Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation because he did not establish, prima facie, that continued enforcement of his maintenance obligation would create an extreme hardship ( see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; DiVito v DiVito, 56 AD3d 601, 602; Mahato v Mahato, 16 AD3d 386). In addition, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for a downward modification of his child support obligations because he did not establish, prima facie, that there had been a substantial, unanticipated, and unreasonable change in circumstances ( see Mahato v Mahato, 16 AD3d 386; Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671).