Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his argument that he should have been afforded youthful offender treatment ( see CPL 470.05; People v Murray, 57 AD3d 921, affd 15 NY3d 725; People v Martinez, 301 AD2d 615, 616; People v Miles, 244 AD2d 433). As to the merits of the defendant's argument, since the defendant was convicted of an armed felony offense ( see CPL 1.20 [b]; Penal Law § 70.02 [b], [c]; §§ 110.00, 160.10 [2] [b]), he could only be adjudicated a youthful offender if there existed "mitigating circumstances that [bore] directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed," or if his participation in the crimes was "relatively minor" (CPL 720.10 [i], [ii]; see People v Stokes, 28 AD3d 592). The sentencing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to sentence the defendant as a youthful offender, since there were insufficient mitigating circumstances to support such an adjudication ( see CPL 720.20 [a]; People v Stokes, 28 AD3d at 592). Furthermore, the defendant, who placed a BB gun at the victim's head and demanded money, was not a minor participant in this crime ( see People v Jhang, 302 AD2d 606, 607).