Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant's petition sought a downward modification of his maintenance obligation under a judgment of divorce subject to the terms of a stipulation of settlement that was incorporated but not merged into the judgment. Under such circumstances, the appellant was required to demonstrate "extreme hardship" ( Matter of Cohen v. Seletsky, 142 AD2d 111, 112; see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Matter of Ross v. Ross, 297 AD2d 286).
The Support Magistrate's findings are entitled to great deference ( see Matter of Barrett v. Pickett, 5 AD3d 591, 592). Although the Support Magistrate committed numerical errors in her factual findings, she correctly found that the appellant's income had decreased from $138,761 in 2000 to $101,475 in 2003. The court properly determined that this did not constitute extreme hardship ( see e.g., Pintus v. Pintus, 104 AD2d 866, 868).