v. Citibank, N.A., Appellant. v. <<

ResetAA Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of New York.

Richard N. Golden, Respondent, v. Citibank, N.A., Appellant.

No. 71

    Decided: May 06, 2014

Barry J. Glickman, for appellant.

Richard N. Golden, respondent pro se.


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 [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 24 N.Y. 637 [1918];  Kaufman v Chase Manhattan Bank, Natl. Assn., 370 F Supp 276, 278 [SD 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 AD3d at 415 [citations omitted] ).   To the extent Gates v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co./Capital Region (98 A.D.2d 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 plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.   Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus–Salaam concur.

FindLaw Career Center

    Select a Job Title

      Post a Job  |  Careers Home

    View More