Casey, J.
A court has broad discretion to set aside a foreclosure sale and order a resale (see, National Bank v. Van Keuren, 184 A.D.2d 92, 95), but mere inadequacy of price does not establish sufficient grounds to vacate a sale (see, Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 N.Y.2d 515, 521). In the absence of fraud, collusion or other irregularity, the foreclosure sale will not be set aside unless the inadequacy of the sale price is so great that it shocks the conscience of the court (see, Manufacturers Traders Trust Co. v. Niagara Sq. Assocs., 199 A.D.2d 975, 976, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 845). We are of the view that the claimed inadequacy in this case does not rise to that level (see, Cross-land Mtge. Corp. v. Frankel, 192 A.D.2d 571, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 655; Buttermark Plumbing Heating Corp. v. Sagarese, 119 A.D.2d 540, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 607). Defendant's claim that the location where the sale was conducted varied from the terms of the judgment of foreclosure was not raised at Supreme Court and will not be considered for the first time on appeal (see, First Natl. Bank v. G.F. Clear, Inc., 93 A.D.2d 925). We also note the lack of any evidence of prejudice as a result of the claimed discrepancy (see, Marine Midland Bank v. Landsdowne Mgt. Assocs., 193 A.D.2d 1091, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 656). Supreme Court's order must therefore be affirmed.
Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.