Opinion
December 11, 2008.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered May 17, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, denied intervenor's motions to set aside a foreclosure sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
There were no defects in the notice of sale, which, in compliance with a prior order, notified bidders of the existence of a prior mortgage that plaintiff believed had been satisfied and the fact that the title company would indemnify a purchaser against any risk with respect thereto. plaintiff's advertising of its lien as a first mortgage, coupled with the indemnification letter from the title company, sufficiently established that the lack of a properly filed satisfaction of the prior mortgage did not render title unmarketable ( cf. Lovell v Jimal Holding Corp., 127 AD2d 747). The motion court correctly held that intervenor failed to show that the claimed defects in the terms of sale had a chilling effect on the bidding, or that intervenor was otherwise substantially prejudiced thereby (RPAPL 231; see Polish Natl. Alliance of Brooklyn v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 406-407). We have considered intervenor's other arguments and find them unavailing.