Judgment affirmed.
The trial court properly admitted into evidence a sawed-off shotgun which was allegedly the murder weapon. At trial, three witnesses identified the gun recovered from defendant's possession as either the one with which defendant shot decedent or one that looked exactly like it. It should be noted that the gun was somewhat unusual in appearance. Furthermore, the ballistics report determined that the shotgun pellets and plastic wadding removed from decedent were entirely consistent with the weapon which was recovered. Moreover, defendant admitted his ownership of the weapon. A sufficient connection between the gun, the defendant and the murder was established (see, People v Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 453; People v Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 408-409, cert. denied 449 U.S. 1087; People v Flammer, 106 A.D.2d 398; People v Randolph, 40 A.D.2d 806).
Furthermore, the fact that a five-week interval existed between the commission of the crime and the recovery of the weapon goes to the weight or probative force of the evidence rather than to its admissibility (see, People v Pinelli, 24 A.D.2d 1023).
Finally, there is no merit to defendant's claim that the imposed concurrent prison terms of 25 years to life for second degree murder and 5 to 15 years for second degree criminal possession of a weapon are unduly harsh or excessive. Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.