When, despite the court's prior warnings against opening the door to precluded evidence, defendant's testimony on direct examination generally tried to convey the misimpression that he was unfamiliar with firearms, the court properly modified its Sandoval ruling to permit limited inquiry about prior instances of weapons possession, and properly allowed the prosecutor to ask appropriate follow-up questions ( see People v. Fardan, 82 NY2d 638, 645-647; People v. Sims, 245 AD2d 316, lv denied 91 NY2d 1013; People v. Laguer, 183 AD2d 485, lv denied 80 NY2d 905). The court's thorough limiting instructions served to prevent any undue prejudice. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.