Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his arrest was based upon probable cause provided in the confessions of his two accomplices (see, People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 427; People v Thomas, 103 A.D.2d 854, 855). As the arrest was thus lawful, the defendant's own confession need not be suppressed.
Similarly, the machine gun with which the defendant perpetrated the crimes at bar was properly admitted into evidence. Its recovery from a codefendant, coupled with the identification testimony of the various witnesses, established the requisite connection between the defendant and the weapon and thus its admission in evidence was correct (see, People v. Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, cert denied 449 U.S. 1087; People v. Vargas, 125 A.D.2d 429, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 887). Any uncertainty as to the accuracy of the witnesses' identification of the weapon merely goes to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility (see, People v Cunningham, 116 A.D.2d 585, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 941; People v McNair, 32 A.D.2d 662).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit (see, People v. Ramos, 70 N.Y.2d 639; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.