ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
While under arrest for an unrelated crime, the defendant was put in two lineups. He gave written statements confessing to his role in two robberies, and made a videotaped confession. The defendant challenges only his videotaped confession. The defendant's contention that the delay in his arraignment was for the sole purpose of depriving him of his right to counsel is without merit. An unnecessary delay in arraignment, without more, does not cause the accused's right to counsel to attach automatically (see, People v. Hopkins, 58 N.Y.2d 1079, 1081; People v. White, 259 A.D.2d 508; People v. Marinelli, 238 A.D.2d 525, 526; People v. Beckham, 174 A.D.2d 748, 749; People v. Quartieri, 171 A.D.2d 889, 891; People v. Mosley, 135 A.D.2d 662, 663-664). Where, as here, the police were investigating the defendant's possible involvement in two unrelated crimes, and where the delay was in part occasioned by the defendant's assistance in helping the police locate his accomplices, the delay in arraignment was warranted (see, People v. White, supra; People v. Marinelli, supra; People v. Beckham, supra; People v. Quartieri, supra; People v. Borazzo, 137 A.D.2d 96).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, FEUERSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.