Opinion
April 25, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of his maintenance obligation (see, Kover v. Kover, 29 N.Y.2d 408; Ardito v. Ardito, 97 A.D.2d 830). In any event, the alleged changes in the defendant's financial position were either anticipated by him when he entered into the stipulation of settlement which was incorporated into the judgment of divorce (see, Langlitz v. Langlitz, 73 A.D.2d 740) or were self-imposed (see, Hickland v. Hickland, 39 N.Y.2d 1, rearg denied 39 N.Y.2d 943, cert denied 429 U.S. 941; Weinberg v. Weinberg, 95 A.D.2d 828). Furthermore, the court properly denied the defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing inasmuch as he failed to set forth sufficient allegations to warrant a downward modification (cf., Levinson v. Levinson, 97 A.D.2d 458), and presented no issue of fact which required resolution at a hearing (see, O'Neill v. O'Neill, 109 A.D.2d 829; Ardito v. Ardito, supra). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.