Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court erred in determining that the defendant could challenge the stipulation of settlement before the entry of a judgment of divorce only by commencing a plenary action (see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 N.Y.2d 51, 56 [1979]; Cruciata v Cruciata, 10 A.D.3d 349 [2004]; Bailey v Assam, 269 A.D.2d 344 [2000]; Arguelles v Arguelles, 251 A.D.2d 611 [1998]; Zeppelin v Zeppelin, 245 A.D.2d 504 [1997]; cf. Spataro v Spataro, 268 A.D.2d 467 [2000]; Riley v Riley, 179 A.D.2d 750 [1992]; Lambert v Lambert, 142 A.D.2d 557 [1988]).
Nevertheless, the defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward modification of his support obligation (see Matter of Hanlon v Hanlon, 303 A.D.2d 505 [2003]; Beard v Beard, 300 A.D.2d 268 [2002]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Comment
User Comments