Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court's charge served to lessen the prosecution's burden of proof is without merit. The charge, when viewed as a whole, conveyed to the jury the correct principles of law (see, People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830; People v Anderson, 194 A.D.2d 546).
The defendant also contends that the court improperly permitted the prosecutor to question him regarding a prior conviction for attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance, which the court had initially ruled, after a Sandoval hearing, would not be the subject of questioning. However, the defendant's direct testimony suggested that he had no prior drug-related convictions. Accordingly, the court did not err in ruling that the defendant had "opened the door" to the topic of his prior conviction. The court properly modified its Sandoval ruling to permit the prosecutor to inquire as to whether the defendant had been convicted of the prior crime (see, People v Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638; People v Julien, 182 A.D.2d 642; People v Morgan, 171 A.D.2d 698; People v Santiago, 169 A.D.2d 557).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.