Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request to submit the lesser-included offense of robbery in the third degree to the jury. However, the defendant's conduct, as perceived by the complainant, was the display of a gun within the meaning of Penal Law § 160.10 (2). Thus, a reasonable view of the evidence would not support the conclusion that the crime occurred without the display of a gun ( see People v Cooper, 294 AD2d 592; People v Ruiz, 220 AD2d 466; People v Maynard, 211 AD2d 505; People v Mays, 178 AD2d 557). Accordingly, the defendant's request for a charge on the lesser-included offense of robbery in the third degree was properly denied.
Moreover, the trial court properly refused to charge the noninclusory concurrent count of grand larceny in the fourth degree ( see CPL 300.40 [a]; People v Leon, 7 NY3d 109, 113-114).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).