
    [11 NE3d 194, 988 NYS2d 121]
    Richard N. Golden, Respondent, v Citibank, N.A., Appellant.
    Argued March 25, 2014;
    decided May 6, 2014
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      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 NY2d 776, 777 [1978]; Hart v North Fork Bank, 37 AD3d 414, 415 [2d Dept 2007]; Matter of Bank of U.S., 243 App Div 287, 291 [1st Dept 1935]; Bobrick v Second Natl. Bank of Hoboken, 175 App Div 550, 552 [1st Dept 1916], affd 224 NY 637 [1918]; Kaufman v Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 370 F Supp 276, 278 [SD NY 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 AD3d at 415 [citations omitted]). To the extent Gates v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co./Capital Region (98 AD2d 829 [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 plaintiffs 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.  