It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Petitioner, an inmate at Groveland Correctional Facility, commenced this proceeding seeking modification of the visitation provisions of a prior order. Family Court properly denied that part of the petition seeking an expansion of visitation from once a month to twice a month. “Where an order of custody and visitation is entered on stipulation, a court cannot modify that order unless a sufficient change in circumstances—since the time of the stipulation—has been established, and then only where a modification would be in the best interests of the children” (Matter of Watts v Watts, 290 AD2d 822, 823-824 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 614 [2002]). Petitioner failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting modification or that expanding visitation would be in the children’s best interests (see Matter of Folsom v Folsom, 286 AD2d 830 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 606 [2001]; Matter of Davis v Davis, 232 AD2d 773, 773-774 [1996]). We reject the contention of petitioner that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Schimmel v Schimmel, 262 AD2d 990, 991 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 817 [1999]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.