Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Having executed a stipulation of settlement which was incorporated but not merged into the subsequent judgment of divorce, the defendant was required to establish an unanticipated change in circumstances to justify a downward modification of his child support obligation ( see Mahato v Mahato, 16 AD3d 386; Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671), and an extreme hardship to justify a suspension or reduction of spousal maintenance ( see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268; Vinnik v Vinnik, 295 AD2d 339).
The Supreme Court, which heard the evidence and observed the witnesses' demeanor, properly rejected the defendant's allegation of an unanticipated change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation ( see Douglas v Douglas, 7 AD3d 481; Matter of Barrett v Pickett, 5 AD3d 591). Furthermore, the evidence at the hearing did not establish that the defendant will suffer extreme hardship in paying for his obligations so as to merit a reduction or suspension of his maintenance obligation ( see Norman v Dykman, 23 AD3d 358, 359; Beard v Beard, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.