Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was for a Wade hearing was properly denied because the complainant's identification of the defendant was made spontaneously and was not the product of an identification procedure arranged by the police (see, People v. Dawson, 185 A.D.2d 854; People v. Rios, 156 A.D.2d 397; People v. Prewitt, 150 A.D.2d 618; People v. Rolon, 145 A.D.2d 658). Moreover, the defendant's request for a hearing to determine whether his arrest was supported by probable cause was properly denied, since his supporting papers were conclusory and failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to warrant such a hearing (see, Matter of George J., 187 A.D.2d 427, affd 82 N.Y.2d 415; People v. Scott, 182 A.D.2d 649; People v. Rodriguez, 162 A.D.2d 478).
The defendant further claims that his rights were violated when the jury requested trial exhibits and the court either failed to respond or did so without consulting counsel. Since this claim rests on matters which are not contained in the record, its presentation on direct appeal is improper (see, People v Harvall, 196 A.D.2d 553; People v. Brown, 192 A.D.2d 666; People v Noland, 189 A.D.2d 829). Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.