DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in determining that the prosecution's fingerprint expert laid a sufficient foundation to provide the jury with the factual basis for his conclusion that the defendant's fingerprints matched the latent prints taken from the scene of the crime (see People v. Jones, 73 N.Y.2d 427, 430; People v. Wilson, 133 A.D.2d 179; People v. Myers, 220 A.D.2d 272, 273; People v. Shaw, 111 A.D.2d 835, 836), and in concluding that the weaknesses in the expert's testimony went to the credibility and weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility (see People v. Miller, 91 N.Y.2d 372, 380).
The sentence imposed on the conviction of burglary in the second degree was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
SMITH, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.