Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that continued enforcement of her obligation to pay maintenance under the parties' stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, would create an "extreme hardship" ( Matter of Ross v. Ross, 297 AD2d 286, 287; see Pintus v. Pintus, 104 AD2d 866, 867-868; see also Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). She also failed to establish a substantial, unanticipated, and unreasonable change in circumstances warranting a reduction in child support ( see Matter of Boden v. Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213; Praeger v. Praeger, 162 AD2d 671, 673; Nordhauser v. Nordhauser, 130 AD2d 561, 562). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of her motion which was for a downward modification.
Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for the appointment of a Law Guardian ( see Riccio v. Riccio, 21 AD3d 1107; Dodaro v. Dodaro, 269 AD2d 420). In addition, the Supreme Court properly found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on the issue of custody ( see Nash v. Yablon-Nash, 16 AD3d 471; Matter of Timson v. Timson, 5 AD3d 691).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.