Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 10, 1994 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated June 5, 1995, made upon renewal; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated June 5, 1995, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the intervenors are awarded one bill of costs. The Supreme Court correctly determined that the properly executed affidavit of service raised a presumption that the notice of the foreclosure sale was properly mailed, and that the appellant's affidavits failed to raise any issue of fact sufficient to rebut that presumption ( see, CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; Engel v Lichterman, 62 NY2d 943, 944-945; Deygoo v Eastern Abstract Corp., 204 AD2d 596; Andersen v Mazza, 193 AD2d 898; compare, Morgan v Long Beach Entertainment Complex, 125 AD2d 378; Vita v Heller, 97 AD2d 464).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the printing of the incorrect index number and the listing of a bidding amount in the published notice of the foreclosure sale were de minimis irregularities which should be ignored as the appellant failed to present any evidence of prejudice ( see, RPAPL 231; Hanover Funding Co. v Keri Assocs., 180 AD2d 945, 946).
The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in disregarding the Referee's late filing of the report of sale ( see, RPAPL 1355; Reconstruction Fin. Corp. v Finch, 8 AD2d 869; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assocs. v Graham, 67 Misc 2d 735; see also, Fidelity Bond Mtge. Co. v Lucas, 135 AD2d 778).
We have reviewed the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.