The court correctly denied respondent's motion to vacate the order of filiation granted upon her default in appearing on the return date for the paternity petition. Respondent's explanations for her absence from the proceedings were unsubstantiated and, as such, properly rejected by the court ( see Matter of Derrick T., 261 A.D.2d 108, 109). Moreover, even if respondent had a valid excuse for her absence, she provided no explanation for her failure to contact the court respecting her unavailability ( see Matter of Ashley Marie M., 287 A.D.2d 333, 334).
Even if the merits were to be reached, respondent would, notwithstanding blood tests excluding petitioner as the subject child's biological father, be equitably estopped from challenging petitioner's assertion of paternity. The evidence showed that it would be detrimental to the interests of the child, six years of age at the time of the Family Court proceedings, to countenance the disruption of her close relationship with petitioner, whom she has always known and loved as her father ( see Matter of Richard W. v. Roberta Y., 240 A.D.2d 812, 813-815, 90 N.Y.2d 809; Matter of Ettore I. v. Angela D., 127 A.D.2d 6, 12).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.