¶ Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
¶ The natural father challenges the constitutionality of section 111 (subd 1, par [d]) of the Domestic Relations Law for the first time on this appeal. Having failed to raise the issue before the Family Court, and no notice of this challenge having been given to the Attorney-General, the constitutionality of this statute is beyond our review (Executive Law, § 71; CPLR 1012, subd [b]; Matherson v. Marchello, 100 A.D.2d 233, 241; see, also, Matter of Tonya Louise M., 91 A.D.2d 868).
¶ We have reviewed the appellant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Titone, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and O'Connor, JJ., concur.