Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing a defendant's risk level assessment pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law art 6-C), the People bear the burden of establishing the facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence ( see Correction Law § 168-n; see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 5 [2006]; People v Hewitt, 73 AD3d 880; People v Chambers, 66 AD3d 748; People v Bright, 63 AD3d 1133, 1134; People v Hardy, 42 AD3d 487). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 7 because he was a stranger to the victim within the meaning of the Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary ( see People v Britt, 66 AD3d 853, 853; People v Milton, 55 AD3d 1073; People v Hardy, 42 AD3d 487; People v Kaminski, 38 AD3d 1127, 1128; see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 12 [2006]; compare People v Helmer, 65 AD3d 68; People v McGraw, 24 AD3d 525, 526). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.