Appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (David Frey, J.), entered December 15, 2017. The order adjudicated defendant a level three predicate sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C).

Legal Aid Society (Jonathan Garelick of counsel) for appellant.

Alvin Bragg, District Attorney (Jacob C. Marcus of counsel), for respondent.

Order (David Frey, J.), entered December 15, 2017, affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to defer adjudication of defendant's sex offender classification (see People v Boone, 41 NY3d 573, 581-582 [2024]; see also People v Dufresne, 209 AD3d 541 [1st Dept 2022], affd 42 NY3d 973 [2024]). Defendant's transfer from the custody of the New York City Department of Correction, following the completion of his sentence for the underlying sex offense, to the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, where he would be held on bail awaiting sentencing on an unrelated conviction, constituted a "release" within the meaning of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Under the statute's plain language, the registration requirements are triggered upon "release from any state or local correctional facility, hospital or institution" (Correction Law § 168-f [1] [a]), without regard to whether an inmate will be subject to supervision or incarceration in another jurisdiction (see People v Worrell, 221 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 904 [2024]; People v Staley, 104 AD3d 583 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]).

"[N]owhere in the statute does SORA require delaying a risk level classification hearing or a final SORA adjudication until an offender's reentry into the community is assured . . . [and] by listing the specific facilities, release from which triggers various SORA obligations, rather than simply stating that 'release into the community' does so, the legislature made clear its intent" (People v Boone, 41 NY3d 573, 583 [2024]).

We note, also, that defendant does not challenge the level three classification, based upon the presumptive override for his prior felony sex crime conviction, nor argue that he should{**84 Misc 3d at 6} receive a downward departure. Under the circumstances, the possibility that the court would be in a better position to decide the risk assessment issue at the completion of defendant's sentence in the unrelated case is speculative. In any event, defendant has the statutory right to seek a modification of his SORA risk level designation in the future (see Correction Law § 168-o). [*2]

Brigantti, J.P., James and Perez, JJ., concur.