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 three designation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in designating him a level three sex offender ( see People v Ainoris, 57 AD3d 864; People v Bowens, 55 AD3d 809, 810; People v Windham, 37 AD3d 571, affd 10 NY3d 801; People v Morales, 33 AD3d 982, 983).