As the presentment agency concedes, the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the weapon possession charge. However, the court's finding with respect to the imitation firearm charge was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence supported the court's conclusion that, at the time it was in appellant's possession, the item in question "substantially duplicate[d] or [could] reasonably [have been] perceived to be an actual firearm" (Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-131 [g] [1]), especially from the point of view of an observer with no opportunity to examine it closely.