Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The County Court designated the defendant a level three sex offender based upon the existence of an overriding factor, namely, "a clinical assessment that the [defendant] has a psychological, physical, or organic abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines Commentary, at 3 [1997 ed]; see generally People v Scott, 288 AD2d 763). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence and, therefore, should not be disturbed ( see Correction Law § 168-n; People v Davis, 26 AD3d 364; People v Hegazy, 25 AD3d 675, 676; People v Hines, 24 AD3d 524). The defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances warranting a downward departure from the presumptive risk level ( see People v Davis, supra; People v Ventura, 24 AD3d 527; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545).