The People also established that the defendant engaged in three or more acts of sexual contact over a period of at least two weeks (see SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 10 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]; People v Jarama, 178 A.D.3d 970, 971; People v Dilillo, 162 A.D.3d 915, 916). Thus, the People met their burden of proof with respect to risk factor 4 (see People v Brown, 194 A.D.3d 861, 862; People v Eason, 192 A.D.3d 925, 926; People v Maldonado, 147 A.D.3d 798, 799). As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court erred in assessing 30 points under risk factor 5 for the age of the victim being 10 or less.

The People also established that the defendant engaged in three or more acts of sexual contact over a period of at least two weeks (see SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 10 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]; People v Jarama, 178 A.D.3d 970, 971; People v Dilillo, 162 A.D.3d 915, 916). Thus, the People met their burden of proof with respect to risk factor 4 (see People v Brown, 194 A.D.3d 861, 862; People v Eason, 192 A.D.3d 925, 926; People v Maldonado, 147 A.D.3d 798, 799). As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court erred in assessing 30 points under risk factor 5 for the age of the victim being 10 or less.

Since the defendant did not request a downward departure from his presumptive risk level in the Supreme Court, his contentions on appeal regarding a downward departure are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Rodriguez, 194 A.D.3d 864; People v Eason, 192 A.D.3d 925, 926; People v Yglesias, 180 A.D.3d 821, 822-823). In any event, the defendant did not satisfy his burden of "(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence" (People v Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 128; see People v Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d at 861; People v Fernandez, 219 A.D.3d 760, 763; People v Barry, 213 A.D.3d 779, 781; People v Morales, 192 A.D.3d 930, 931; see also Guidelines at 4).

[1] Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed points under risk factors 3 and 7, since the People established by clear and convincing evidence that the child pornography possessed by the defendant depicted images of at least two child victims, and that the children in the images were strangers to the defendant (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 859–860, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701; People v: Titone, 209 A.D.3d 888, 889, 176 N.Y.S.3d 296; People v. Smith, 187 A.D.3d 1228, 1229, 131 N.Y.S.3d 572; People v. Bolan, 186 A.D.3d 1273, 1274, 127 N.Y.S.3d 891). [2, 3] Since the defendant did not request a downward departure from his presumptive risk level in the Supreme Court, his contentions on appeal regarding a downward departure are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Rodriguez, 194 A.D.3d 864, 143 N.Y.S.3d 607; People v. Eason, 192 A.D.3d 925, 926, 140 N.Y.S.3d 731; People v. Yglesias, 180 A.D.3d 821, 822–823, 120 N.Y.S.3d 169). In any event, the defendant did not satisfy his burden of "(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence" (People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85; seePeople v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d at 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701; People v. Fernandez, 219 A.D.3d 760, 763, 194 N.Y.S.3d 557; People v. Barry, 213 A.D.3d 779, 781, 182 N.Y.S.3d 758; People v. Morales, 192 A.D.3d 930, 931, 140 N.Y.S.3d 720; see also Guidelines at 4).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 4 for engaging in a continuing course of sexual misconduct. The People established by clear and convincing evidence, including the defendant's sworn statement and the probation department's presentence report, that the defendant engaged in two or more acts of sexual contact with the victim, at least one of which was an act of sexual intercourse, and that the acts were separated in time by at least 24 hours (seePeople v. Gomez, 204 A.D.3d 843, 845, 164 N.Y.S.3d 492 ; People v. Eason, 192 A.D.3d 925, 926, 140 N.Y.S.3d 731 ; People v. Arrahman, 144 A.D.3d 1009, 1010, 43 N.Y.S.3d 60 ; People v. Tigre, 134 A.D.3d 687, 688, 19 N.Y.S.3d 778 ). The Supreme Court also properly assessed the defendant 15 points under risk factor 14.

The People presented clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in two or more acts of sexual contact, at least one of which was an act of sexual intercourse, and the acts were separated in time by at least 24 hours (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 10 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). Thus, the People met their burden of proof for the assessment of points under risk factor 4 (seePeople v. Gomez, 204 A.D.3d 843, 845, 164 N.Y.S.3d 492 ; People v. Brown, 194 A.D.3d 861, 862, 143 N.Y.S.3d 610 ; People v. Lopez, 192 A.D.3d 1050, 1051, 141 N.Y.S.3d 314 ; People v. Eason, 192 A.D.3d 925, 926, 140 N.Y.S.3d 731 ). A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of "(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence" (seePeople v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ; seePeople v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; see also Guidelines at 4).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed points under risk factors 3 and 7, since the People established by clear and convincing evidence that the child pornography possessed by the defendant depicted images of more than three child victims, and that the children in the images were strangers to the defendant (seePeople v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 859–860, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; People v. Smith, 187 A.D.3d 1228, 1229, 131 N.Y.S.3d 572 ; People v. Bolan, 186 A.D.3d 1273, 1274, 127 N.Y.S.3d 891 ; People v. Benton, 185 A.D.3d 1103, 1104–1105, 125 N.Y.S.3d 206 ; People v. Worrell, 183 A.D.3d 602, 603, 122 N.Y.S.3d 356 ). Since the defendant did not request a downward departure from his presumptive risk level in the County Court, his contentions on appeal regarding a downward departure are unpreserved for appellate review (seePeople v. Rodriguez, 194 A.D.3d 864, 143 N.Y.S.3d 607 ; People v. Eason, 192 A.D.3d 925, 926, 140 N.Y.S.3d 731 ; People v. Yglesias, 180 A.D.3d 821, 822–823, 120 N.Y.S.3d 169 ). In any event, the defendant failed to establish that a downward departure was warranted.

The People also established that the defendant engaged in three or more acts of sexual contact over a period of at least two weeks (see SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 10 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]; People v. Jarama, 178 A.D.3d 970, 971, 112 N.Y.S.3d 516 ; People v. Dilillo, 162 A.D.3d 915, 916, 81 N.Y.S.3d 56 ). Thus, the People met their burden of proof with respect to risk factor 4 (seePeople v. Brown, 194 A.D.3d 861, 862, 143 N.Y.S.3d 610 ; People v. Eason, 192 A.D.3d 925, 926, 140 N.Y.S.3d 731 ; People v. Maldonado, 147 A.D.3d 798, 799, 45 N.Y.S.3d 587 ). As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court erred in assessing 30 points under risk factor 5 for the age of the victim being 10 or less.

Following a hearing to determine the defendant's risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6–C), the Supreme Court assessed a total of 115 points under the risk assessment instrument (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 3–4 [2006]) and designated the defendant a level three sex offender. Since the defendant did not request a downward departure from his presumptive risk level in the Supreme Court, his contentions on appeal regarding a downward departure are unpreserved for appellate review (seePeople v. Eason, 192 A.D.3d 925, 140 N.Y.S.3d 731, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 08264 [2d Dept.] ; People v. Yglesias, 180 A.D.3d 821, 822–823, 120 N.Y.S.3d 169 ). In any event, the defendant failed to establish that a downward departure was warranted (seePeople v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ).