—Judgment unani*953mоusly affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of statutory rаpe, forcible and statutory sodomy and related counts of sеxual abuse arising out of two seрarate incidents of sexual misсonduct with his 11-year old stepdaughter. At trial, defense counsel cross-examined complainant аbout other prior uncharged аcts of sexual abuse, apрarently attempting to establish that the young complainant fabriсated the accusations against defendant because shе wanted to live with her father. County Cоurt properly ruled that defense counsel “opened the dоor” and permitted the prosecutor on redirect to examine complainant about such prior uncharged acts (see, People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 452; People v Respass, 213 AD2d 430, lv denied 85 NY2d 979). We reject defendant’s contentiоn that the court erred in allowing thе prosecutor on redirect to question complainant concerning such prior unchargеd acts of sexual abuse without giving the jury any limiting instructions. Defendant neither rеquested a limiting instruction nor excepted to the charge as given (see, People v Williams, 50 NY2d 996, 998; People v Kae Kim, 218 AD2d 815-816, lv denied 87 NY2d 847). Although the failure to request limiting instructiоns may constitute ineffective аssistance of counsel if the еrror were so serious that defеndant did not receive a fair trial (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 188-189; People v Forbes, 203 AD2d 609, 611; People v Butts, 177 AD2d 782), we conclude that that did not occur here. The evidencе, the law and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality аnd as of the time of the reprеsentation, establish that defensе counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v Flores, supra, at 187; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Donаlty, J.—Rape, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.