In Adkins v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 346, 350-351, 372 N.E.2d 311, 401 N.Y.S.2d 469 (1977), the Court reviewed the legislative history of the former savings provision as well as the cases applying it. Noting the "harsh" results when complaints were dismissed because timely service was made by ordinary rather than registered mail, the Court concluded that the former savings provision was added "to permit effective service within the statutory period by means other than registered mail or personal delivery" (43 N.Y.2d at 350-351). The Court also observed in Adkins that the former savings provision contained two requirements--first, that timely notice of claim was "actually received" by a person designated by law to receive service on behalf of the party against whom the claim was made; and second, that this party demanded an examination of the claimant (id. at 351). Only where both conditions were met could defects in the "manner" of service be cured id.