Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the Supreme Court's supplemental instructions created the impression that the identification of the defendant was an established fact and unfairly marshaled the evidence of misidentification are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Stewart, 81 N.Y.2d 877; People v. Williams, 195 A.D.2d 986; People v. Pizzaro, 184 A.D.2d 448; People v. Alfrane, 184 A.D.2d 324; People v. Velasquez, 178 A.D.2d 451). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there is no significant probability that the supplemental instructions influenced the verdict and therefore, any error in this respect was harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Rowley, 160 A.D.2d 963; People v. Brewington, 145 A.D.2d 962, 963; People v Rivera, 125 A.D.2d 421).
The defendant's requests for a hearing on the issue of whether the defense counsel was afforded an opportunity to suggest responses to the jury's notes is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Stewart, supra, 81 N.Y.2d, at 879; People v. Backus, 184 A.D.2d 231; see also, People v. O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270, 277), and in any event, rests on matter which is not contained in the record, so that the presentation of this issue on direct appeal is improper (see, People v. Noland, 189 A.D.2d 829).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Balletta, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.