Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), dated October 26, 2011, as, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
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 [Sex Offender Registration Act] Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence” (Pe ople v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128 [2011]; see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that defendant was not entitled to a downward departure and, thus, properly designated him a level three sex offender (see People v Wood, 112 AD3d 602 [2013]; People v Roldan, 111 AD3d 909, 910 [2013]).