Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated August 14, 2015, which, after a hearing, designated her a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
This proceeding was commenced after the appellant was convicted in federal court of the crime of sexual intercourse with a ward (18 USC § 2243 [b]). In a case summary and risk assessment instrument (hereinafter RAI) dated April 21, 2015, *542completed by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board) pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]), the Board assessed the appellant a total of 110 points, which presumptively placed the appellant in a risk level three category. The appellant’s contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that she should not be required to register as a sex offender pursuant to SORA on the ground that the federal crime of which she was convicted does not “include [ ] all of the essential elements” (Correction Law § 168-a [2] [d] [i]) that constitute the New York crime of rape in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 130.25 [1]; 130.05 [3] [e]), is not preserved for appellate review (see e.g. People v Howard, 27 NY3d 337, 342 [2016]; People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801, 802 [2008]), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.
The appellant’s contention that she is entitled to a downward departure to risk level one also is without merit. “A defendant seeking a downward departure 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 not otherwise adequately taken into account by the [SORA] Guidelines [Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (2006)]; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence’ ” (People v Roldan, 111 AD3d 909, 910 [2013], quoting People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128 [2011]; see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). Here, the SORA court providently exercised its discretion in concluding, based on the mitigating factors raised by the appellant, that a downward departure to a risk level two was appropriate, and that further departure to a risk level one was not warranted (see e.g. People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 131).
The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit.
Chambers, J.P., Austin, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.