Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (David Fitzmaurice and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler [Lauren Schorr Potter and Meghan Larywon], of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Ronald Eniclerico of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard L. Buchter, J.), rendered December 3, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possession of pistol ammunition, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Following a nonjury trial, the defendant was convicted of three counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possession of pistol ammunition in connection with a shooting incident in the defendant's apartment wherein the victim died. The defendant was acquitted of the charge of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) on the ground that the prosecution failed to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt (see id. § 35.20 [3]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Mathieu, 83 AD3d 735, 735-736 [2011]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) (see id. § 265.15 [4]; People v Mathieu, 83 AD3d at 736).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

[*2] The defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]).

The sentences imposed on the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Duffy, J.P., Christopher, Wan and Landicino, JJ., concur.