Spain, J.
In 1994, defendant was convicted of, among other things, sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, stemming from his impermissible sexual acts against an 11-year-old girl. Defendant was thereafter sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 to 18 years. Prior to his scheduled release in January 2007, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders evaluated and classified defendant as a presumptive risk level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law art 6-C). Following a risk assessment hearing, County Court adopted the Board's recommendation and classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant contends that a downward departure from a risk level three sex offender status to a risk level two status is warranted, based upon evidence presented that he was being released into a strong family structure, as well as the steps he has taken regarding drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Such a downward departure is only warranted where there exist mitigating factors not adequately taken into account by the Board's risk assessment guidelines ( see People v Leeks, 43 AD3d 1251, 1252; People v Scott, 35 AD3d 1015, 1016, lv denied 8 NY3d 808; People v Mothersell, 26 AD3d 620, 621). Furthermore, "the question of whether any mitigating factors exist to warrant such a reduction is within the sound discretion of [County Court] to decide" ( People v Warren, 42 AD3d 593, 595, lv denied 9 NY3d 810; see People v McCormick, 21 AD3d 1221, 1222). Here, the record reveals that County Court considered defendant's rehabilitation efforts and family dynamic in making the classification, and rationally concluded that these factors did not warrant a downward departure from the presumptive risk level three status. Therefore, County Court's conclusion that a downward departure was not warranted did not constitute an abuse of discretion ( see People v Mitchell, 41 AD3d 1056, 1057; People v Kaminski, 38 AD3d 1127, 1128, lv denied 9 NY3d 803).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.