Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was properly allocated points both for his expulsion from a treatment program (risk factor 12) and his release without supervision (risk factor 14), as there was clear and convincing evidence which merited the imposition of points in both categories ( see People v Orengo, 40 AD3d 609, 610; see also People v Rouff, 49 AD3d 517; People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690).
The defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances that would warrant a downward departure from the presumptive level three designation established by the proof at the hearing ( see People v Herron, 59 AD3d 414; People v Pasquarelli, 57 AD3d 753). The County Court appropriately designated the defendant a level three sex offender and providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure.