DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was denied the opportunity to testify before the Grand Jury was waived by his failure to timely move to dismiss the indictment (see, CPL 190.50; People v. Obee, 232 A.D.2d 430 ; People v. Valle, 198 A.D.2d 459 ). In any event, the contention is without merit.
The Supreme Court did not err in modifying its Sandoval ruling to allow impeachment on cross-examination of the defendant's mother by the use of two of the defendant's prior convictions. Once the defendant or a defense witness testifies to facts which conflict with the previously-precluded evidence, the defense has "opened the door" on that issue, and the witness is properly subject to impeachment by the prosecution's use of the otherwise-precluded evidence (see, People v. Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638, 646 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN, and SMITH, JJ., concur.