The defendant appeals from an order designating him a level two sex offender and a sexual predator pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6–C [hereinafter SORA] ). Even assuming that the Supreme Court erred in assessing the defendant 10 points under risk factor 12 of the risk assessment instrument, subtracting these 10 points would not alter the defendant's presumptive risk level (seePeople v. Gilmore, 159 A.D.3d 839, 840, 69 N.Y.S.3d 807 ; People v. Britton, 148 A.D.3d 1064, 1065, 49 N.Y.S.3d 742, affd 31 N.Y.3d 1019, 75 N.Y.S.3d 459, 99 N.E.3d 852 ; People v. Perez, 115 A.D.3d 919, 919–920, 982 N.Y.S.2d 568 ). The Supreme Court did not err in declining the defendant's request, made at the time of the SORA hearing, for an adjournment of the hearing and the appointment of an expert psychiatrist or psychologist to assist him in seeking a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation.

Defendant further contends that the court improperly assessed 10 points against him under risk factor 13 for unsatisfactory conduct while confined. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention has merit, we conclude that subtracting the points assigned for that risk factor "would not alter the defendant's presumptive risk level" ( People v. Perez, 115 A.D.3d 919, 920, 982 N.Y.S.2d 568 [2d Dept. 2014] ). Finally, we reject defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure inasmuch as defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of mitigating factors not adequately taken into account by the guidelines (see generallyPeople v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014] ).

However, even after deducting the 15 points assessed under risk factor 11, which are the only assessed points the defendant challenges on appeal, the defendant is still a presumptive level two sex offender ( see People v. Perez, 115 A.D.3d 919, 919–920, 982 N.Y.S.2d 568; People v. Thompson, 95 A.D.3d at 978, 943 N.Y.S.2d 771). The defendant thus further contends that the hearing court should have granted his request that it depart from the presumptive risk level to find that he is a level one sex offender.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the assessment of 10 points under risk factor 13 for unsatisfactory conduct while confined was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see People v. Perez, 115 A.D.3d 919, 982 N.Y.S.2d 568 ; People v. Watson, 109 A.D.3d 463, 463–464, 970 N.Y.S.2d 92 ). The defendant's unsatisfactory conduct during his incarceration was established by his inmate disciplinary history report, which revealed that he committed seven Tier II disciplinary violations (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 16 [2006] ).