Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 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).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly admitted into evidence a photograph, taken approximately three days prior to the shooting, showing him holding a gun that was similar to the weapon used in the crimes at issue. This evidence was admissible to establish the defendant's identity, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect ( see People v Rivera, 281 AD2d 702, 703; People v Brown, 266 AD2d 863; People v Espinal, 262 AD2d 245).
Further, the testimony of a detective that the defendant's fingerprints were already in the system, which was not specifically identified as police-related, did not compel the inference that the defendant had a past criminal history ( see People v Henry, 71 AD3d 1159, 1160; People v Garcia, 294 AD2d 515; People v Myers, 220 AD2d 272).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, do not require reversal.