The New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has upheld a decision granting Joseph Masci sole legal custody and primary physical placement of his child. This ruling affects the custody arrangement between Masci and the child's mother, Jessica Romero, and highlights the court's focus on the child's best interests in custody disputes.

The case, known as Matter of Masci v. Romero, was filed under docket number 602 CAF 25-00930 and was decided on October 2, 2026. The court's decision comes after a family court order from May 16, 2025, which initially granted Masci custody rights. This ruling is significant as it emphasizes the importance of maintaining a stable environment for children in custody cases.

Background

Joseph Masci and Jessica Romero are the parents involved in this custody dispute. The case arose after Masci petitioned for a modification of their existing custody agreement, claiming that Romero had interfered with his visitation rights and telephone access to their child. This interference prompted Masci to seek legal action to ensure he could maintain a relationship with his child.

The family court initially ruled in favor of Masci, granting him sole legal custody and primary physical placement of the child. Romero, along with the Attorney for the Child (AFC), appealed this decision, arguing that the family court had made errors in its ruling and that the custody arrangement should be modified.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division affirmed the family court's decision, stating that Masci had demonstrated a sufficient change in circumstances that warranted a review of the existing custody agreement. The court noted that the mother had admitted to violating the existing agreement by obstructing Masci's visitation and communication with the child.

The court ruled, "It is well settled that a change in circumstances may be demonstrated by, inter alia, ... interference with the noncustodial parent's visitation rights and/or telephone access."

Furthermore, the court addressed Romero's claims that the family court had improperly considered her conduct after Masci's petition was filed. The court clarified that while postpetition conduct cannot be used to establish a change in circumstances, it can be relevant when determining the best interests of the child. The court concluded that the family court's decision was well-supported by the evidence presented.

Impact

This ruling has implications for future custody cases in New York, particularly those involving allegations of parental interference. The court's emphasis on the importance of a stable environment for children reinforces the principle that custodial decisions must prioritize the child's best interests. This case may serve as a reference for similar disputes, illustrating how courts evaluate claims of interference and the significance of maintaining consistent communication between parents and children.

The decision also highlights the court's deference to family court determinations regarding custody arrangements. As the Appellate Division stated, "a court's custody determination, including its evaluation of a child's best interests, is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed as long as it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record." This statement reinforces the idea that family courts are in a unique position to assess the dynamics of custody cases.

What's Next

Romero and the AFC may consider their options for further appeal, although the ruling from the Appellate Division is typically final unless there are grounds for a higher court to review the case. Details regarding any potential related cases were not available in the court filing.