That his last offense occurred 30 years before his SORA hearing is of no moment because his behavior in custody "is not necessarily indicative of his future conduct while at liberty" ( People v. James D., 200 A.D.3d 618, 618–619, 155 N.Y.S.3d 766 [1st Dept. 2021] ). On the other hand, the egregiousness of the underlying crime, and defendant's extensive history of similar sex offenses in the approximately three decades following it, indicate a grave risk of sexual reoffense that was not adequately accounted for by the risk assessment instrument (seePeople v. Bonnet, 212 A.D.3d 445, 179 N.Y.S.3d 571 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 912, 2023 WL 3102112 [2023] ; People v. Feliciano, 192 A.D.3d 600, 141 N.Y.S.3d 302 [1st Dept. 2021] ). The fact that defendant committed the subsequent offenses in other states after absconding from New York, while awaiting trials in the underlying case and a similar matter in Queens County, further supports an upward departure (seePeople v. Gonzalez, 34 A.D.3d 240, 823 N.Y.S.2d 147 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 804, 830 N.Y.S.2d 700, 862 N.E.2d 792 [2007] ).

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting an upward departure to level two (see generally People v Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861 [2014]). Clear and convincing evidence established that defendant committed two prior sex offenses against young female strangers, similar to the underlying offense, which were not accounted for by the risk assessment instrument because those convictions occurred after the conviction in the instant case (see People v Feliciano, 192 A.D.3d 600 [1st Dept 2021]). Defendant's pattern of offending behavior indicated a significant risk of recidivism, which was not outweighed by the mitigating factors he cites, including his efforts at rehabilitation and his progress in sex offender treatment.