Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court's designation of the defendant as a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law art 6-C; People v Pardo, 50 AD3d 992; People v Lawless, 44 AD3d 738; People v Hegazy, 25 AD3d 675). Based upon the defendant's prior conviction of driving while intoxicated, his score on the Michigan Alcoholic Screening test, and facts contained in the case record and presentence report (see Correction Law § 168-n; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832; People v Smolen, 47 AD3d 623; People v Yarborough, 43 AD3d 1129), the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11 for a history of alcohol abuse ( see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 15 [2006]; People v Guitard, 57 AD3d 751).
The defendant failed to present any mitigating factors which would warrant a downward departure and, thus, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's designation of the defendant as a level two sex offender ( see People v Blackman, 78 AD3d 803; People v Baez, 77 AD3d 406).