Opinion
July 10, 1980
Appeal from the Oneida Supreme Court.
Present — Simons, J.P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Appellant, whose appeal here was pending on March 5, 1979, has standing to challenge the constitutionality of sections 236 Dom. Rel. and 237 Dom. Rel. of the Domestic Relations Law in light of Orr v. Orr ( 440 U.S. 268). We hold that these sections are gender-neutral, authorizing relief to either spouse when appropriate (Martin v. Martin, 74 A.D.2d 419; Albanese v. Albanese, 75 A.D.2d 987; Childs v. Childs, 69 A.D.2d 406, cert den 446 U.S. 901, mandamus den sub nom. Childs v Appellate Div. of Supreme Ct. of N.Y., Second Judicial Dept., 444 U.S. 1010), and we find that these statutes were not unconstitutionally applied here (Martin v. Martin, supra). Defendant's failure to supply a financial statement in accordance with section 250 Dom. Rel. of the Domestic Relations Law and the rules of this Department (22 NYCRR 1039.14) is not a basis for overturning the Trial Judge's award of alimony in view of appellant's failure to raise a proper objection at trial (CPLR 5501, subd [a], par 3; see, also, CPLR 4017) and defendant's testimony as to her financial situation and the full and fair opportunity granted appellant to cross-examine her at trial as to both her financial means and needs (see CPLR 2002). There is sufficient evidence of the relative circumstances of the parties in the record to permit the trial court to award alimony, child support and counsel fees (Martin v. Martin, supra). We have examined other issues raised by appellant and find them to be without merit.