PEOPLE v. SPRING

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant's contention that he was entitled to a down-ward departure to a level two sex offender status is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Iorio, 74 AD3d 1306; People v Rivera, 51 AD3d 646, 647; People v Lewis, 50 AD3d 1567, 1568). In any event, the defendant failed to demonstrate that there existed mitigating circumstances of a kind or to a degree not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines that warranted a downward departure from his presumptive level three sex offender status ( see People v Mendez, 79 AD3d 834, lv denied 16 NY3d 707; People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463).