Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion, inter alia, for a downward modification of his child support, maintenance, and equitable distribution obligations pursuant to the stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce ( see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Beard v. Beard, 300 AD2d 268; Matter of McKeown v. Woessner, 249 AD2d 396). The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances with respect to child support, or of extreme hardship with respect to maintenance and equitable distribution, sufficient to warrant a hearing ( see Praeger v. Praeger, 162 AD2d 671, 673; Vinnik v. Vinnik, 295 AD2d 339; Mishrick v. Mishrick, 251 AD2d 558).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.