Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court's determination to designate him a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and thus, should not be disturbed ( see Correction Law § 168-n; People v. Hampton, 300 AD2d 641). The County Court properly considered the grand jury testimony in making its determination ( see People v. Thomas, 300 AD2d 379).
The defendant's contention that the County Court improperly assessed 15 points for the category concerning release without supervision on his "Risk Assessment Instrument" was unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Oquendo, 1 AD3d 421, 422) and, in any event, without merit.