Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in admitting the gun into evidence. The People showed that the gun was relevant to the charge of robbery in the first degree under Penal Law § 160.15 (4) ( see, People v. Saez, 69 N.Y.2d 802, 804; People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 381), and they showed a sufficient nexus between defendant and the gun ( see, People v. Rowley, 160 A.D.2d 963, 964, lv dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 896, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 926; People v. Dinkins, 139 A.D.2d 759). Any issues concerning either the probative value of the gun or the accuracy of the victims' identification of it were for the jury ( see, People v Rowley, supra, at 964; People v. Dinkins, supra, at 760).
Furthermore, we reject the contention of defendant that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. The imposition of a more severe sentence after trial than that offered to defendant pursuant to a plea offer that he rejected, without more, does not support the contention of defendant that he was penalized for exercising his right to go to trial ( see, People v. Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 411-412, rearg denied 51 N.Y.2d 770, cert denied 449 U.S. 1087; People v. Lam, 226 A.D.2d 554; People v. Reed, 222 A.D.2d 616).
Lastly, we have reviewed the contention raised in defendant's supplemental pro se brief and conclude that it is lacking in merit.