It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). County Court's upward departure from the presumptive risk level in determining that defendant is a level three risk rather than a level two risk is supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see generally People v Carswell, 8 AD3d 1073, lv denied 3 NY3d 607; People v Hitt, 7 AD3d 813, lv denied 3 NY3d 606). If the risk of a repeat offense is high and there is a threat to the public safety, a level three designation is appropriate ( see Correction Law § 168-Z [6] [c]; People v Heichel, 20 AD3d 934, 935). Here, there is clear and convincing evidence that, over the course of two years, defendant committed numerous violent sexual offenses against a girl who was 10 years old when the abuse started and that, while in prison, defendant was disciplined for attempting to mail his semen to an unknown recipient.