Opinion
May 20, 2008.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth L. Sussman, J.), entered on or about March 9, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Before: Gonzalez, J.P., Catterson, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.
Defendant's claim that he does not qualify as a sex offender is similar to the claim made by the defendant in People v Cintron ( 46 AD3d 353, lv denied 10 NY3d 804). For the reasons stated in Cintron, we find this claim to be both unpreserved and without merit ( see also People v Windham, 37 AD3d 571, affd 10 NY3d 801). To the extent that defendant is asserting that it is unconstitutional to determine his qualification as a sex offender on the basis of an administrative computation of his aggregate sentence made in accordance with Penal Law § 70.30, we likewise find that claim to be unpreserved and meritless.
Defendant did not establish any special circumstances warranting a downward departure from his risk level ( see People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545).