BOBINSKI v. BOBINSKI

"[W]here parents enter into an agreement concerning custody it will not be set aside unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation and unless the modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the children" ( Matter of Gaudette v. Gaudette, 262 AD2d 804, 805; see Smoczkiewicz v. Smoczkiewicz, 2 AD3d 705, 706).

The Supreme Court's determination must be accorded great deference on appeal, since it had the opportunity to assess the witnesses' demeanors and credibility ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173; Darema-Rogers v. Rogers, 199 AD2d 456, 457). Its award of custody of the parties' children to the father was in the children's best interests ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra at 171-173). The mother's conduct, inter alia, in alienating the children from their father, interfering with their relationships, and disregarding the father's rights as a joint custodial parent, were acts so inconsistent with the best interests of the children ( see Stern v. Stern, 304 AD2d 649; Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114, 122; Matter of J.F v. L.F., 181 Misc 2d 722, affd 270 AD2d 489), that it cannot be said that the Supreme Court's determination lacked a sound and substantial basis ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra).

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.