SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Armand Retamozzo, originally pro se, but represented by counsel at argument, appeals an award of summary judgment dismissing his claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, against the City of New York (“the City”) and two New York City Police Detectives responsible for his arrest, Edward Gonzalez and Jose Vargas (the “Detectives”). 1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review awards of summary judgment de novo and will affirm only if the record reveals no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Sudler v. City of New York, 689 F.3d 159, 168 (2d Cir. 2012). In making this determination, we resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Sudler v. City of New York, 689 F.3d at 168. Nevertheless, more than “a scintilla of evidence” is necessary to defeat summary judgment; the evidence must be sufficient to permit a reasonable finder of fact to hold in the nonmovant’s favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Upon such review, we conclude that Re-tamozzo’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its well-reasoned order. As the district court correctly concluded, probable cause to arrest Retamozzo was established as a matter of law by facts that were explicitly not disputed by Retamozzo. Insofar as he now urges otherwise, the disputes he identifies are too trivial to raise a triable question of fact as to probable cause. For example, whether the ecstasy pills underlying Retamozzo’s arrest were retrieved from “a bush,” “a set of bushes,” or “hedges” in the general location of Re-tamozzo’s car is immaterial to determining probable cause and would not allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict in his favor. See id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Furthermore, we decline to consider Re-tamozzo’s alternative challenge to the timeliness of defendant’s summary judgment motion because it is well established that we will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. See Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp., 697 F.3d 110, 130 (2d Cir. 2012).

We have considered Retamozzo’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.