oral argument, Old Republic conceded that the district court erred in holding that Fed.R.Civ.P. 4, as it existed in 1987, permitted service on an out-of-state defendant in the manner prescribed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(3) or the laws of Ohio, the state in which service was effected. See Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 913-14 (2d Cir.1983). Therefore, the only issues before us are whether service was effective and whether an evidentiary hearing was required under New York law. Under the laws of New York, service on a corporation may be effected by tendering the summons to, inter alia, a corporate director, officer, or managing or general agent. See Fashion Page, Ltd. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 50 N.Y.2d 265, 271, 428 N.Y.S.2d 890, 406 N.E.2d 747 (1980); see a .2d 799, 484 N.Y.S.2d 632, 633 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Engel v. Lichterman, 95 A.D.2d 536, 467
holding that no federal nexus is required holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute holding no remand required where no fundamental rights are implicated holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required holding that because there was no factual dispute between the parties the presumption of correctness is not relevant