In making its determination, the court properly considered grand jury minutes, which constituted "reliable hearsay evidence" (Correction Law § 168-n). The Confrontation Clause does not apply to these proceedings ( People v Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 25, lv denied 4 NY3d 885), and the use of reliable hearsay did not deprive defendant of due process ( see People v Mingo, 49 AD3d 148, 152). Defendant's arguments concerning unlawful grand jury disclosure ( see CPL 190.25; Penal Law § 215.70) are without merit because, in the circumstances presented, the court's acceptance of the minutes sufficed as an order of the court to reveal them ( see People ex rel. Ryan v Warden, N.Y. City House of Detention, 113 AD2d 116, 119).
The People established, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three adjudication. Defendant's challenges to the choice of risk factors made by the Legislature and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders are both waived and without merit ( see People v Bligen, 33 AD3d 489; People v Joe, 26 AD3d 300, lv denied 7 NY3d 703).