Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that special circumstances existed warranting a downward departure from his presumptive risk level two sex offender designation ( see People v Pearsall, 67 AD3d 876; People v Atkinson, 65 AD3d 1112; People v Herron, 59 AD3d 414, 415 [2009]; People v Ainoris, 57 AD3d 864, 865; People v Pasquarelli, 57 AD3d 753; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545; cf. People v Stevens, 55 AD3d 892, 894).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court, after considering the mitigating factors advanced by the defendant, appropriately determined the defendant to be a level two sex offender and providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure ( see People v Goodwin, 49 AD3d 619, 621).