Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
There was clear and convincing evidence to support the designation of the defendant as a level three sex offender ( see Correction Law § 168-n; People v Leeks, 43 AD3d 1251, 1252; People v Davenport, 38 AD3d 634, 635; People v Fisher, 36 AD3d 880; People v Inghilleri, 21 AD3d 404; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545). There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was improperly assessed certain points under the risk assessment instrument, or that he was otherwise entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level three designation ( see People v Williams, 34 AD3d 662; People v Abdullah, 31 AD3d 515; People v Lombard, 30 AD3d 573, 574; see also People v Stevens, 48 AD3d 536; People v Davenport, 38 AD3d 634; People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776).