Ordered that the order dated May 28, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
A parent seeking downward modification of a child support obligation has the burden of establishing a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances ( see Matter of Fowler v Rivera, 40 AD3d 1093, 1094; Matter of Prisco v Buxbaum, 275 AD2d 461). In order to meet that burden, a party seeking a downward modification based on a loss of employment must submit evidence demonstrating that he or she has diligently sought to obtain employment commensurate with that party's earning capacity ( see Matter of Muselevichus v Muselevichus, 40 AD3d 997, 998; Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d 803, 804; Matter of Meyer v Meyer, 205 AD2d 784; see also Matter of Davis v Davis, 197 AD2d 622, 623).
Here, the unsubstantiated conclusory allegations of the father that he diligently sought employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience were insufficient to meet his burden ( see Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d at 804; Barson v Barson, 32 AD3d 872, 873). Therefore, the Support Magistrate properly denied the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation ( see Matter of Muselevichus v Muselevichus, 40 AD3d at 999; Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d at 804), and the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to so much of the order of the Support Magistrate as denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.