Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. None of defendant's statements was the product of unnecessary delay in his arraignment on an unrelated drug possession charge. Delay in arraignment may be justified by the need to investigate additional charges (People v. Hopkins, 58 N.Y.2d 1079, 1081). Here, it was defendant who initially asked to speak with the police concerning an active homicide investigation. This necessitated lengthy interviews of defendant, and when he provided false information this required further investigation including interviews of other persons.
The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits upon defendant's cross-examination of police witnesses at the suppression hearing (see, People v. Melcherts, 225 A.D.2d 357, 88 N.Y.2d 881, see also, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679). The precluded questions were irrelevant or repetitive.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.