DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant's contention that the County Court erroneously designated him a level three sex offender because the People failed to prove his mental health status by clear and convincing evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Roland, 292 A.D.2d 271). In any event, the court's determination was not based solely on the defendant's mental health status. The court also relied on other aggravating factors in concluding that an upward departure from the defendant's presumptive risk level was warranted, as recommended by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. Its determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence and should not be disturbed (see People v. Hampton, 300 A.D.2d 641 [2d Dept, Dec. 30, 2002]; People v. Bottisti, 285 A.D.2d 841).
ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and COZIER, JJ., concur.