Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and recognizing that credibility is for the trier of facts (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient, and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
The People established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's statement was voluntary even though defendant refused to sign a Miranda warnings card (People v. Danaher, 115 A.D.2d 905, 906). Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the summary of his statement, which was composed by the detective and unsigned by defendant, was inadmissible, and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find it without merit because there was evidence that the statement was read to defendant, who orally acknowledged its accuracy (see, People v. Lee, 159 A.D.2d 238, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 791).
The court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony that the complainant had made threats to defendant's common-law wife in the year preceding the incident. This testimony, although offered as evidence of such bias by the complainant toward defendant, was remote, and the jury already had before it ample, and more direct, evidence of bias (see, People v. Brooks, 131 N.Y. 321, 326-327).
Finally, the claim of right defense (Penal Law § 155.15) had no applicability to the larceny charge in this case.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.