Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP, New York City (Barry J. Glickman and Bruce S. Goodman of counsel), for appellant. Richard N. Golden, Forest Hills, respondent pro se.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
A cashier's check—essentially, a check drawn by a bank on itself—is presumed to have been issued for value, and the issuance of such a check constitutes an acceptance by the issuing bank, which gives rise to an obligation to pay ( see Dziurak v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 44 N.Y.2d 776, 777, 406 N.Y.S.2d 30, 377 N.E.2d 474 [1978]; Hart v. North Fork Bank, 37 A.D.3d 414, 415, 829 N.Y.S.2d 624 [2d Dept.2007]; Matter of Bank of U.S., 243 App.Div. 287, 291, 277 N.Y.S. 96 [1st Dept.1935]; Bobrick v. Second Natl. Bank of Hoboken, 175 App.Div. 550, 552, 162 N.Y.S. 147 [1st Dept.1916], aff'd.224 N.Y. 637, 121 N.E. 856 [1918];Kaufman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 370 F.Supp. 276, 278 [S.D.N.Y.1973] ). When a bank has issued a cashier's check, it cannot stop payment, “unless there is evidence of fraud, or the check is lost, stolen, or destroyed” ( Hart, 37 A.D.3d at 415, 829 N.Y.S.2d 624 [citations omitted] ). To the extent Gates v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co./Capital Region, 98 A.D.2d 829, 470 N.Y.S.2d 492 (3d Dept.1983) holds otherwise, it was wrongly decided and should not be followed.
Plaintiff demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his first cause of action, to compel payment on a cashier's check, and defendant, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Appellate Division properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT, RIVERA and ABDUS–SALAAM concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.