Respondent's motion to vacate his default was properly denied upon the ground that his claim that he was tending to his ailing father on the day of the hearings was not credibly substantiated (see,Matter of "Male" J., 214 A.D.2d 417). Also unsubstantiated were respondent's claims that he regularly visited or attempted to visit the children. His claims that he was planning for the children's future were largely unresponsive to the proof adduced at the hearing. Ample evidence supports the findings that the agency made diligent efforts to strengthen respondent's parental relationship with the children, that respondent repeatedly failed to attend scheduled visits with the children and to cooperate with the agency's referrals for alcohol abuse, and that the children's best interests would be served by freeing them for adoption by their foster mother in whose care they have been since 1985, essentially their entire lives (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 143-144, 147-148; Matter of Aisha Latisha J., 182 A.D.2d 498,lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 759).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.