PEOPLE v. KRAUS

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

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to downwardly depart from the defendant's presumptive risk level inasmuch as there was no clear and convincing evidence in the record of a mitigating factor "of a kind or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Burgos, 39 AD3d 520; cf. People v Agard, 35 AD3d 568).