Judgments affirmed.
Although there was a gap in the chain of custody for admitting the gun found near defendant at the time of his arrest, the gun was uniquely marked with a police officer's initials, making it readily identifiable. Thus, a police officer's testimony that the gun presented at trial was the same exact gun that he found on the day of the arrest, was sufficient to admit the gun into evidence, since there existed "`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; see, also, People v McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, cert den. sub nom. Waters v New York, 446 U.S. 942; People v Connelly, 35 N.Y.2d 171; People v Jiminez, 100 A.D.2d 629). The fact that there were deficiencies in the chain of custody goes to the weight of the real evidence, and not to its admissibility ( People v McGee, supra, p. 60; People v Julian, supra, p. 344; People v White, 40 N.Y.2d 797, 799-800). We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
In view of the fact that we are affirming the judgment rendered after trial, defendant's challenge to the second judgment rendered on his guilty plea is academic. Boyers, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.