Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We reject the appellants' contention that Samuel L. Moore is not a duly qualified voter because his change of residence is not reflected on his buff card. The evidence reveals that Mr. Moore notified the Board of Elections of the City of New York of his change of address, which was within the same political subdivision, and there is no evidence that Mr. Moore's voter registration was canceled (see, Election Law § 5-400; § 5-402 [2]). Moreover, each of Mr. Moore's witness statements accurately reflects his current address. Therefore, we find that Samuel L. Moore is a duly qualified voter (see, Nesci v. Canary, 112 A.D.2d 1056). Thus, the signatures he collected are valid (see, Election Law § 6-132).

Further, the failure of two subscribing witnesses to identify themselves as either a notary public or a commissioner of deeds constituted a mere technical defect, as they stated their identification numbers and the expiration date of their offices as notaries public (see, Matter of Kolken v. Mahoney, 49 A.D.2d 798, revd on other grounds 37 N.Y.2d 787; Cubisino v. Cohen, 47 N.Y.S.2d 952, affd 267 App. Div. 891). Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.