—[*1] Sanford Solny, New York, for appellant.

Druckman & Sinel, LLP, Westbury (Robert D. Aronin of counsel), for respondent.

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.

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 [1987]). 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 [6]; see Polish Natl. Alliance of Brooklyn v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 406-407 [1983]). We have considered intervenor's other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.