Order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 1, 1965, affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs. Appellants reclaim the amount paid in by them as bidders at the original foreclosure sale on the grounds (1) that the plaintiff-respondent is benefitting from misrepresentations made by her attorney to induce the appellants to purchase the premises in question, and (2) that she is being unjustly enriched. These grounds are being advanced for the first time on this appeal. There is nothing in any of the affidavits submitted by the appellants as part of the record from which any deliberate misrepresentation by the respondent's attorney could even be inferred. As for the claim of unjust enrichment, it is quite common in judicial sales that the defaulting purchaser may be held for any deficiency resulting from the failure to obtain on resale the amount of his bid on the first sale, and his 10% deposit may be applied to the payment of any deficiency ( Riggs v. Pursell, 66 N.Y. 193; 13 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, §§ 88:43, 88:45). We pass on no other questions. Brennan, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Nolan, JJ., concur.