Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Photographs of homicide victims are admissible to demonstrate the position of the victim's body or the placement of the victim's wound or wounds ( see, People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 370). The disputed photographs tended to corroborate the testimony of the medical examiner regarding the placement of the gunshot wound. The fact that those photographs "`portray a gruesome spectacle and [might have tended] to arouse passion and resentment against the defendant in the minds of the jury'" did not require their exclusion ( People v Pobliner, supra, at 369-370; see, People v Wood, 79 NY2d 958, 960). Weighing their probative value against the potential for prejudice, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting the photographs into evidence ( see, People v Ponce, 213 AD2d 725; People v Ellwood, 205 AD2d 553, 554; People v Dellemand, 205 AD2d 551, 552).
The trial court correctly determined that ballistics evidence recovered from a person other than the victim was relevant and admissible to complete the narrative of the incident ( see, People v Gines, 36 NY2d 932; People v Johnson, 210 AD2d 256). Further, the court gave appropriate limiting instructions.
The defendant's sentence is not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101; People v Buckley, 75 NY2d 843; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641) or are without merit.