Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence concerning the operability of the handgun underlying the two counts of reckless endangerment of which he was convicted is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, it is without merit. The circumstantial evidence adduced at trial overwhelmingly established the operability of the weapon (see, People v. Arroyo, 188 A.D.2d 655; People v. Maeweather, 159 A.D.2d 1008; People v. Hechavarria, 158 A.D.2d 423).
Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contentions, the indictment was not insufficient for failing to specify the conduct of which he was being accused or the location of the crime. The indictment as amplified by the bill of particulars provided the defendant with all the notice to which he was entitled (see, People v. Fitzgerald, 45 N.Y.2d 574; People v. Watt, 192 A.D.2d 65, affd 84 N.Y.2d 948).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
S. Miller, J. P., O'Brien, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.