ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly rejected the claim of the defendant former husband that a decline in the income of his business warranted the elimination of his maintenance obligation and a downward modification of his child support obligation ( see, Matter of Dallin v. Dallin, 250 A.D.2d 847). The defendant did not meet his burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances ( see, Klapper v. Klapper, 204 A.D.2d 518). Notably, although he contended that the alleged decline in his income resulted from various health problems he had been experiencing, he failed to submit any evidence to substantiate the existence of the alleged medical conditions ( see, Matter of Dallin v. Dallin, supra).
S. MILLER, J.P., SULLIVAN, FRIEDMANN, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.