Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the court erred in admitting nine bullets into evidence because the People failed to establish a proper chain of custody linking that evidence to defendant. Although the proof establishing the chain of custody was somewhat weak, it nevertheless demonstrated that at all times the bullets were within the control of the police. Further, the testimony established the authenticity of that evidence through "`reasonable assurances of identity and unchanged condition'" (People v Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343, quoting People v Porter, 46 A.D.2d 307, 311; People v Jiminez, 100 A.D.2d 629).
Defendant's claim of irregularities in the chain of custody goes to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of the evidence (see, People v McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 59-60; People v White, 40 N.Y.2d 797, 799-800). Even if we were to find that it was error to admit the bullets into evidence, any error in that regard would be harmless because the proof of guilt was overwhelming and there is no significant probability that, but for the error, the jury would have acquitted defendant (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-243).