On appeal, the defendant challenges the assessment of points under risk factor 13, and further contends that he should have been granted a downward departure from his presumptive risk level on the ground that the assessment of points under risk factor 13 resulted in an overassessment of his risk. " ‘In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence’ " ( People v. Bautista, 210 A.D.3d 1020, 1021, 179 N.Y.S.3d 288, quoting People v. Levy, 192 A.D.3d 928, 929, 140 N.Y.S.3d 721 ; see Correction Law § 168–n[3] ; People v. Guadeloupe, 173 A.D.3d 910, 911, 100 N.Y.S.3d 384 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed points under risk factor 13.
"'In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence'" (People v Bautista, 210 A.D.3d 1020, 1021, quoting People v Levy, 192 A.D.3d 928, 929; see Correction Law § 168-n[3]; People v Guadeloupe, 173 A.D.3d 910, 911). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed points under risk factor 13.
"'In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence'" (People v Greenridge, 224 A.D.3d 852, 853, quoting People v Levy, 192 A.D.3d 928, 929; see Correction Law § 168-n[3]). "'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..., or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay'" (People v Vasquez, 189 A.D.3d 1480, 1481, quoting People v Luna, 187 A.D.3d 805, 806 [internal quotation marks omitted).
The defendant failed to establish an appropriate mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence (see id.; People v Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 128). His completion of a sex offender treatment program was adequately taken into account by the Guidelines (see People v Infantino, 215 A.D.3d 768, 771; People v Abdullah, 210 A.D.3d 704, 706) and he did not set forth how his age would lower his risk of reoffending (see People v Levy, 192 A.D.3d 928, 930; People v Santiago, 137 A.D.3d 762, 764). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
, defendant's otherwise unsupported allegation of consensual sex is without merit. As to his remaining contentions in support of a downward departure, defendant did not demonstrate that the sexual abuse he allegedly experienced as a child was a mitigating factor regarding his risk of recidivism (see People v Levy, 192 A.D.3d 928, 930 [2d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 910 [2021]). Finally, defendant's completion of sex offender treatment and other vocational training, his stable living environment upon release and the support of his family are factors either taken into consideration by the risk assessment guidelines or do not warrant a downward departure (see People v Holton, 193 A.D.3d 1212, 1213 [3d Dept 2021]; People v Young, 186 A.D.3d 1546, 1548 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 907 [2021]). Accordingly, we find that defendant failed to demonstrate mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence and, therefore, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a downward departure nor in classifying him as a risk level two sex offender (see People v Dorvee, 203 A.D.3d 1413, 1416 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Mathews, 181 A.D.3d 1103, 1105 [3d Dept 2020]).
"In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence" (People v Levy, 192 A.D.3d 928, 929). "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..., or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay" (People v Vasquez, 189 A.D.3d 1480, 1481 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 4 for engaging in a continuing course of sexual misconduct.
The defendant appeals. [1, 2] "In establishing a defendant’s risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence" (People v. Levy, 192 A.D.3d 928, 929, 140 N.Y.S.3d 721). "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 …, or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay" (People v. Vasguez, 189 A.D.3d 1480, 1481, 134 N.Y.S.3d 765 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
"In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence" (People v Levy, 192 A.D.3d 928, 929, citing Correction Law § 168-n[3]; People v Guadeloupe, 173 A.D.3d 910, 911). "'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..., or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay'" (People v Vasquez, 189 A.D.3d 1480, 1481, quoting People v Luna, 187 A.D.3d 805, 806 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
The defendant appeals. [1, 2] "In establishing a defendant’s risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence" (Peoplev. Levy, 192 A.D.3d 928, 929, 140 N.Y.S.3d 721, citing Correction Law § 168–n[3]; Peoplev. Guadeloupe, 173 A.D.3d 910, 911, 100 N.Y.S.3d 384). " 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 …, or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay’ " (Peoplev. Vasquez, 189 A.D.3d 1480, 1481, 134 N.Y.S.3d 765, quoting Peoplev. Luna, 187 A.D.3d 805, 806, 130 N.Y.S.3d 323 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
On appeal, the defendant challenges the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 1 (use of violence) and 25 points under risk factor 2 (sexual contact with victim), as well as the application of the automatic override. "In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence" (People v Levy, 192 A.D.3d 928, 929, citing Correction Law § 168-n[3]; see People v Guadeloupe, 173 A.D.3d 910, 911). "'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..., or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay'" (People v Vasquez, 189 A.D.3d 1480, 1481, quoting People v Luna, 187 A.D.3d 805, 806 [internal quotation marks omitted]).