People v. MasonPeople v. Mason
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the Supreme Court‘s determination designating him a level three sex offender is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see
The defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstances to warrant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level as determined by the risk assessment instrument (see People v Davis, 26 AD3d 364 [2006]; People v Masters, 19 AD3d 387 [2005]; People v Williams, 19 AD3d 388 [2005]). Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Fisher, JJ., concur.