Defendant‘s argument that the court incorrectly assessed certain risk factor points is academic, because it is undisputed that even without the five points at issue, defendant would still qualify as a level three sex offender. Defendant‘s argument for a downward departure is unpreserved because he made no such request to the hearing court. In any event, there is no basis in the record for such a departure (seePeople v Mabb, 32 AD3d 1135 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
