Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly vacated that portion of its prior order which imposed a time limitation for respondent condemnees to file a claim for compensation and provided a new period of limitations. Where a party's rights will be affected by an order, the successful party must serve a copy of the order on the adverse party in order to give it validity ( McCormick v. Mars Assoc., 25 A.D.2d 433; see, also, Siegel, N Y Prac, § 250, p 309; 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac, par 2220.02; 2 Carmody-Wait 2d, N Y Prac, § 8:105, p 124). The court's finding that respondents were not served with a copy of the prior order is supported by the evidence.
¶ In addition, there is nothing to indicate that the condemnor complied with the statutory requirement that it serve the condemnees with a notice of acquisition directing them to file a claim within a one-year period (EDPL 502, subd [B], par [4]; 17 Carmody-Wait 2d, N Y Prac, §§ 108:130, 108:131, pp 614-617).