Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's assertion on appeal, we find that the delay between his arrest and arraignment was not calculated to deprive him of his indelible right to counsel and that it did not render involuntary statements made by him to the police during the six-hour period (see, People v Ortlieb, 84 N.Y.2d 989). The delay was justified in part by the fact that the police were trying to elicit information from the defendant concerning the whereabouts of his cousin, an individual they believed was also involved in the instant crime (see, People v Beckham, 174 A.D.2d 748). We note that the hearing record shows that the defendant effectively waived his Miranda rights and willingly talked to the police without the presence of counsel.
We further find that the evidence at trial regarding the defendant's homosexual prostitution and immigration law violations was properly admitted because it was both necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the crime charged and was inextricably interwoven with the description of the events depicted (see, People v Lemma, 201 A.D.2d 669; People v Catala, 198 A.D.2d 293).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J.P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.