People v. PadroPeople v. Padro
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant failed to demonstrate that certain mitigating factors existed warranting a downward departure from his presumptive risk level two designation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in designating him a level two sex offender (see People v Lee, 77 AD3d 897, 898 [2010]; People v Donaldson, 66 AD3d 749, 750 [2009]; People v Williams, 49 AD3d 518 [2008]; cf. People v Abdullah, 31 AD3d 515, 516 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Austin, JJ., concur.