Mikhail MARKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Police Officer Jessi D'Ambrosio, Shield # 16123, Sergeant Dhanan Saminath, Tax # 935678, Defendants-Appellees, Police Officers "John Does" # 1-9, individually and in their official capacities (the name John Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), Defendants, 629 F. App'x 119

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Mikhail Markman appeals from an October 2, 2014 grant of

summary judgment (Cogan, J.), which dismissed all of Markman’s claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and the issues on appeal. We review de novo a grant of

summary judgment, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the nonmovant. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). The district court found that the defendants’ arrest and prosecution of Markman were supported 'by probable cause, so it dismissed Markman’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution. For these claims, probable cause “is a complete defense.” Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). We affirm the dismissal of these claims on the alternative grounds of qualified immunity. See Lotes Co. v.

Hon Hai Precision Indus. Co., 753 F.3d 395, 413 (2d Cir.2014) (“It is well settled that this Court may affirm on any basis for which there is sufficient support in the record, including grounds not relied on by the district court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “[Qualified immunity shields government employees acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unless their conduct violated clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known.” Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563, 568-69 (2d Cir.1996).

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity where the arrest and prosecution are supported by “[arguable probable cause[, which] exists if either (

a) it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that probable cause existed, or (

b) officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether the probable cause test was met.” Escalera v. Lunn, 361 F.3d 737, 743 (2d Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). We find that the officers who arrested and initiated prosecution of Markman had arguable probable cause to believe that he unlawfully possessed a loaded weapon in violation of New York Penal Law

section 265.03. This case is somewhat unusual because the elements of the crime were all presented to the officers by Markman himself, who called them to his car to report a possible explosive underneath it as well as a gun and ammunition in the trunk. New York Penal Law

section 265.20 enumerates exemptions to the crime of unlawful possession, including for police officers, military servicemembers, and persons “voluntarily surrendering such weapon, ... provided that such surrender shall be made ... in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be established by [the] superintendent, sheriff, police force or department” to whom the weapon is surrendered. N.Y. Penal Law § 265.20(a)(1)(f).

Markman argues that because he called the police to report that a weapon had been left in his trunk by two people who had also possibly planted an explosive under his car, the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him because he qualified for the innocent-possession exemption of

section 265.20. We agree with Markman that an officer would lack probable cause to arrest if the arres-tee’s entitlement to a statutory exemption were so plain that no reasonable officer could think otherwise. See Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388, 395 (2d Cir.2006) (in making a probable-cause determination, “an officer may not disregard plainly exculpatory evidence”); see also Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128, 135-36 (2d Cir.2003). For example, without additional facts, an officer would lack probable cause to arrest a servicemember in uniform for possessing a loaded weapon. See N.Y. Penal Law § 265.20(a)(1)(d).

But here, reasonable officers could disagree about whether Markman was entitled to the statutory exemption. When the officers arrived at his vehicle, they found no explosive underneath it, no evidence of tampering, and a gun and ammunition in a closed trunk to which only Markman had access. ' In short, Markman’s claim that others had left or planted the gun in his trunk was subject to objectively reasonable skepticism.

Because the elements of the crime of unlawful possession were met and the exemption was not undebatably applicable, the arresting officers had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Mark-man and initiate prosecution. They are therefore entitled to qualified immunity for his claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Markman also appeals the dismissal of his claim that the police unconstitutionally seized his vehicle. He argues that the district court erred by finding that this claim was foreclosed by the defendants’ compliance with the requirements articulated by Krimstock v.

Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir.2002), because the claim, in Mark-man’s view, should have been analyzed under the Fourth Amendment instead of the Fourteenth. But the KHmstock Court reached its “conclusion in light of the dictates of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id. at 48 (emphasis added). We discern no error in the district court’s dismissal of this claim. On one final matter, we cannot affirm. In a footnote, the district court stated: “[P]laintiff also has asserted claims for ... unspecified violations of the New York State Constitution. The parties’

summary judgment papers have not addressed these claims.... The Court takes plaintiffs unspecified civil rights claims to be withdrawn or subsumed by the rulings in this decision.” Special App. 9 n. 5 (emphasis added). Under Rule 56(f)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is permissible for a district court to grant

summary judgment on “grounds not raised by a party,” but only “[ajfter giving notice and a reasonable time to respond.” See Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51, 62-63 (2d Cir.2015). The district court here gave no notice of its intention to grant

summary judgment on grounds that the defendants did not raise in their briefing below. Accordingly, the grant of

summary judgment on Markman’s non-federal claims was in error. Of course, having correctly dismissed Markmaris federal claims, the district court may, on remand, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims and dismiss them without prejudice to Markmaris ability to pursue them in state court. We have considered Markmaris remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART and VACATED IN PART, and the case is REMANDED.