People v. AtkinsonPeople v. Atkinson
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
There was clear and convincing evidence to support the County Court‘s determination to designate the defendant a level three sex offender (see People v Fisher, 36 AD3d 880 [2007]; People v Inghilleri, 21 AD3d 404 [2005]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). There is no merit to the defendant‘s contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from this risk level (see People v Abdullah, 31 AD3d 515 [2006]; People v Ventura, 24 AD3d 527 [2005]; People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403 [2005]). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.