Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court's designation of the defendant as a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see Correction Law art 6-C; People v Dong V. Dao, 9 AD3d 401, 401-402; People v Smith, 5 AD3d 752; People v Moore, 1 AD3d 421). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the request for a downward departure from the defendant's presumptive risk level since the defendant did not assert a "mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]; see People v Foy, 49 AD3d 835; People v Walker, 47 AD3d 692, 694; People v Williams, 19 AD3d 388; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545).