Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondent.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that it was in the childrens' best interest to continue the custody arrangement informally agreed to by the parties (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89; Fox v Fox, 177 A.D.2d 209). This court's previous decision and order (see, Rybicki v. Rybicki, 176 A.D.2d 867), wherein we affirmed the Supreme Court's prior denial of the former wife's application to relocate to Connecticut with the children, does not require a different result. In the ensuing years, the parties' and the childrens' situations have significantly changed, such that it is now in the best interests of the children for the former wife to have custody of the parties' daughter in Connecticut, and for the former husband to have custody of the parties' sons.
The court properly denied the former husband's application for child support from the former wife, as he failed to demonstrate an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances which resulted in a concomitant need for a change in the child support agreement, or that the parties' child support agreement was unfair when entered into (see, Matter of Boden v. Boden, 42 N.Y.2d 210). The former husband's contention that the court misinterpreted the child support provision in the parties' stipulation is meritless. The Supreme Court acted within its discretion when it denied the former husband's application for attorney's fees.
The former husband's remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.