Defendant argues that his statements made before his arraignment on the robbery charge should have been suppressed on the ground that the police unnecessarily delayed the arraignment, thereby preventing the attachment of his right to counsel. However, there was no showing that defendant's arraignment was "imminent" (People v. Lockwood, 44 N.Y.2d 769, revg on dissenting opn. 55 A.D.2d 17, 20-25). The statements are unrelated to the charge on which he was in custody and whose arraignment he alleges was delayed. Moreover, the court properly found delay was necessitated by the police investigation into unrelated homicide charges (People v. Caldwell, 198 A.D.2d 178, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 803), including the need to arrange a lineup (see, People v. Sease, 265 A.D.2d 176, 696 N.Y.S.2d 430). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.