The majority analogized Kreszko to Rosenblatt in that Supreme Court, in Kreszko, applied a 3215(c) reasoning never argued by either party, to decide a 3215(c) motion just as in Rosenblatt, where the court employed reasoning under CPLR 3212, which was never argued by the parties, to decide a dispositive 3212 summary judgment motion.

Pursuant to either Rosenblatt or Tirado, the reasoning behind the sua sponte dismissal of Citibank's complaint self-preserved the issues for appellate review because it was pursuant to the same CPLR section within which Citibank's motion was based and was dispositive to the action:

"It is only where a court acts wholly outside the parameters of the CPLR basis of a noticed motion, unlike here, where a sua sponte order or ruling is not subject to appeal as of right (CPLR 5701(a](2](v], which specifically confers the right to appeal from orders arising from noticed motions that affect a substantial right). Citibank's noticed motion directly implicated CPLR 3215 which it actually argued in its papers, and resulted in an appealable order, as that order affected the most substantial right of all—the dismissal of its complaint (… Rosenblatt)."