OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Under the unique circumstances presented, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in reserving decision on the Peoples pre-trial Molineux application which sought to cross-examine defendant regarding the underlying facts of his prior gun-related convictions until after defendants testimony, at which time the court could determine whether, and to what extent, defendant opened the door to such inquiry (see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 294, 61 N.E. 286 [1901]; People v. Ingram, 71 N.Y.2d 474, 479, 527 N.Y.S.2d 363, 522 N.E.2d 439 [1988]). In any event, any error that may have occurred in the courts Molineux rulings was harmless (see People v. Grant, 7 N.Y.3d 421, 424–426, 823 N.Y.S.2d 757, 857 N.E.2d 52 [2006]).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.
Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro and Troutman concur. Judge Wilson dissents and votes to reverse and order a new trial, for reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Cheryl E. Chambers at the Appellate Division (186 A.D.3d 731, 734–740, 128 N.Y.S.3d 597 [Chambers, J.P., dissenting]).