“In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant's admissions, the victim's statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board), or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay” (People v. Crandall, 90 A.D.3d 628, 629, 934 N.Y.S.2d 446 ; see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d at 571–573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 ). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established by clear and convincing evidence, including the victim's grand jury testimony and the presentence report, that the defendant inflicted physical injury on the victim, which supported the assessment of 15 points under risk factor 1 (see Penal Law § 10.00[9] ; People v. Davis, 115 A.D.3d 918, 918, 982 N.Y.S.2d 177 ; People v. Argueta, 114 A.D.3d 651, 652, 979 N.Y.S.2d 662 ). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly determined that, because the defendant was a stranger to the victim, the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 7 was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Among other things, the victim's grand jury testimony revealed that she and the defendant met for the first time on the night of the offense, thus establishing that the defendant was a stranger to the victim within the meaning of risk factor 7 (see People v. Mabee, 69 A.D.3d 820, 820, 893 N.Y.S.2d 585 ; People v. Serrano, 61 A.D.3d 946, 947, 877 N.Y.S.2d 472 ).