While the signature of the undercover officer on his deposition was illegible, this did not render the petition jurisdictionally defective since the identity of the undercover officer was clearly indicated by his shield number, and because his "signature" beneath the Penal Law § 210.45 form notice was notarized (see, CPL 100.30 [e]; Matter of Charlene D., 214 A.D.2d 561, 562, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 705). The statements relating to the chain of custody of the cocaine recovered by the officers are regarded as made upon personal knowledge since they were not stated as having been made upon information and belief (CPLR 3023; Matter of Deshone C., 207 A.D.2d 756, 757-758, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 801), and even if later found to have been hearsay, would have constituted only latent defects in the petition and would not have been a ground for mandatory dismissal (Matter of Edward B., 80 N.Y.2d 458, 465). The petition and supporting depositions taken together clearly connected appellant to the mailbox from which the scale and additional drugs were recovered (Matter of Deshone C., supra, at 757).
Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.