Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees because the prosecution failed to establish the element of possession, is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant made only a general motion to dismiss the indictment and did not raise the specific ground that he now raises on appeal ( see CPL 470.05; People v Williams, 38 AD3d 925; People v Prahalad, 295 AD2d 373). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of those crimes 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 factfinder'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).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83).