We reject defendant-husband's claim that he should not be bound by the default provision of the parties' negotiated stipulation agreement whereby he agreed that, if he defaulted on his maintenance obligations, then all future-scheduled maintenance payments would become immediately due to plaintiff-wife. We find nothing unconscionable about this provision under the circumstances present here: the defendant is a sophisticated, successful businessman, with a history of nonpayment in this protracted (nearly 15 years to date) divorce litigation, who was represented by capable counsel in negotiating this clause and who knowingly consented thereto merely 8 months before he first defaulted. We also agree with the IAS Court that a specific hearing on the issue of defendant's allegedly changed financial situation was not warranted on the evidence presented (cf., Busetti v. Busetti, 108 A.D.2d 769). We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.