Jadhon v. Jadhon

• Decision Date: 10 July 1980
• Citation: 431 N.Y.S.2d 218,77 A.D.2d 790
• Parties: Joseph R. JADHON, Appellant. v. Elizabeth JADHON, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 218

431 N.Y.S.2d 218

77 A.D.2d 790

Joseph R. JADHON, Appellant. v. Elizabeth JADHON, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 10, 1980.

Ira M. Ball, Utica, for appellant.

Calli, Calli, Monescalchi & Gordon, Utica, by Joseph S. Monescalchi, Utica, for respondent.

Before SIMONS, J. P., and HANCOCK, SCHNEPP, DOERR, and MOULE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Appellant, whose appeal here was pending on March 5, 1979, has standing to challenge the constitutionality of sections 236 and237 of the Domestic Relations Law in light of Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 59 L.Ed.2d 306. We hold that these sections are gender-neutral, authorizing relief to either spouse when appropriate (Martin v. Martin, App.Div., 427 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1980; Albanese v. Albanese, App. Div., 429 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1980; Childs v. Childs, 69 A.D.2d 406, 419 N.Y.S.2d 533, cert. den. 446 U.S. 901, 100 S.Ct. 1824, 64 L.Ed.2d 253, mand. den. sub nom. Childs v. Appellate Div. of the Supreme Court of New York Second Jud. Dept., 444 U.S.1010, 100 S.Ct. 691, 62 L.Ed.2d 660), 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 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.

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs.