Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that the standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, any rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant's guilt of the charged crimes had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688; People v. Bauer, 113 A.D.2d 543). Furthermore, issues of credibility and the accuracy of an eyewitness's identification present issues of fact for the jury's resolution (see, People v. Shapiro, supra; People v. Tugwell, 114 A.D.2d 869). After reviewing the evidence adduced at the trial, we find no basis to disturb the jury's resolution of the issues. Additionally, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence was of sufficient quality and quantity to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, CPL 470.15).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court properly admitted into evidence a broken gun butt found at the scene of the crime after the complainant's return home from the hospital. The broken gun butt was sufficiently connected to the defendant to render it admissible (see, People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 59; People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 453; People v Cunningham, 116 A.D.2d 585). Any question regarding the accuracy of the object went to its weight or probative force rather than to its admissibility (see, People v. McNair, 32 A.D.2d 662). Nor does the record present us with any reason to substitute our discretion for that exercised by the trial court in imposing sentence (see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86-87). Niehoff, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, JJ., concur.