Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant former husband failed to demonstrate that the continuation of his stipulated maintenance obligation has caused him to suffer "extreme hardship" (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). Therefore, the court correctly denied his motion to eliminate his obligation (Praeger v. Praeger, 162 A.D.2d 671; Gerringer v. Gerringer, 152 A.D.2d 652; Koch v. Koch, 134 A.D.2d 574). Rather, since the parties' agreement, including the former husband's obligation to pay the former wife $100 per week for life, is unambiguous and was lawful when made, there being no claim of overreaching or unconscionability (see, Christian v Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63; Ferro v. Bologna, 31 N.Y.2d 30), the stipulation shall be enforced.
We have reviewed the former husband's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J.P., Joy, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.