DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant's contention that the risk level assessment and case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board) pursuant to Correction Law § 168- l demonstrated that he should have been designated as a level one, rather than a level two, sex offender is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Baker, 303 A.D.2d 570; People v. Roland, 292 A.D.2d 271). At the hearing, the defendant consented to the level two designation and failed to raise the issues now presented on appeal.
In any event, the court's determination to designate the defendant a level two sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence, based on the facts contained in the Board's case summary and risk assessment instrument (see Correction Law §§ 168- l, 168-n), and should not be disturbed.
RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.