As of September 21, 2026: The underlying hotel shelter programs at the center of this litigation have continued winding down. New York City’s Row NYC hotel in Times Square — the city’s last hotel operating as a migrant shelter — ended its shelter contract when its lease expired in April 2026, following a broader closure of dozens of emergency migrant hotel contracts under Mayor Eric Adams and, after he left office, Mayor Zohran Mamdani. In January 2026, Mamdani ordered a plan to close or bring into compliance the city’s remaining emergency shelters; a February 2026 plan set a target of closing the last emergency migrant megashelter, a Bronx facility, by the end of 2026. In June 2026, the city extended its shelter emergency order another 30 days while continuing to phase sites out. We could not independently confirm the specific court rulings described elsewhere in this article (including a Southern District of New York Fifth Amendment ruling or a Denver TABOR discovery order) as of this check; readers should confirm docket status with counsel before relying on those details.
Last updated: September 2026
Hotel owners, neighborhood residents, and taxpayers across the country have real legal options against cities and states forcing hotels into migrant shelter programs. The migrant shelter hotel lawsuit wave has grown into one of the most contested areas of municipal law heading into 2026.
These cases involve billions of dollars in government shelter contracts, property rights, and the limits of government power over private businesses. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Denver are facing lawsuits from multiple directions at once.
This article breaks down who is suing whom, what legal arguments are working in court, who qualifies to file a claim, and what financial outcomes look like for 2026.
What Is the Migrant Shelter Hotel Lawsuit?
The migrant shelter hotel lawsuit refers to legal actions filed against city and state governments that converted hotels into emergency housing for migrants and asylum seekers, often without proper compensation, notice, or consent.
Starting around 2022 and escalating sharply through 2024 and 2025, cities across the United States began placing thousands of migrants in hotels, motels, and extended-stay properties. Some governments leased these properties voluntarily from willing owners. Others pressured hotel operators into agreements under threat of emergency mandates.
The lawsuits that followed come from several directions: hotel owners claiming contract violations and property damage, neighborhood residents citing public safety and zoning violations, and taxpayers challenging the billions spent on these programs without voter approval.
| Key Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Lawsuit Type | Civil suits, class actions, constitutional challenges |
| Primary Defendants | New York City, Chicago, Denver, and other municipalities |
| Primary Plaintiffs | Hotel owners, residents, taxpayers, displaced guests |
| Core Legal Claims | Fifth Amendment takings, contract breach, due process |
| First Major Filings | 2022 to 2023, escalating through 2025 |
| 2026 Status | Active in multiple federal and state courts |
These are not fringe lawsuits. They are being taken seriously by federal judges, and several have already produced injunctions halting specific shelter programs.
Hotel Migrant Shelter Lawsuit 2026: Where Things Stand
By 2026, the hotel migrant shelter lawsuit landscape has shifted significantly from the early reactive filings of 2022 and 2023.
Courts in New York, Illinois, and Colorado are now handling consolidated dockets covering dozens of individual cases. Some early suits were dismissed on procedural grounds, but the strongest ones, particularly those grounded in contract law and the Fifth Amendment, have survived motion-to-dismiss hearings and moved into discovery.
New York remains the most active battleground. The city spent over $3 billion on migrant housing between 2022 and 2025, with a significant portion going to hotels and extended-stay properties. That spending is now at the center of multiple transparency and taxpayer lawsuits demanding financial accounting.
| Year | Key Development |
|---|---|
| 2022 | First hotel owner suits filed in New York |
| 2023 | Chicago resident class action certified |
| 2024 | Denver taxpayer suit survives motion to dismiss |
| 2025 | Federal court rules on NYC Fifth Amendment claims |
| 2026 | Discovery phase active; settlement talks ongoing in several cases |
The legal picture is moving fast, and 2026 is expected to be the year when several of these cases reach either trial or negotiated resolution.
Cities Housing Migrants in Hotels Lawsuit: Which Cities Are Involved?
Multiple cities across the country face active lawsuits over programs that placed migrants in hotels.
New York City runs the largest municipal migrant shelter program in U.S. history. At its peak, the city housed over 65,000 migrants in hotels, emergency shelters, and converted spaces simultaneously. Hotel owners in Manhattan, Queens, and the Bronx have filed separate suits challenging the terms of lease agreements and claiming the city failed to cover property damage.
Chicago converted dozens of hotels and motels on the South and West Sides into migrant housing. A class action filed by local residents in Cook County Circuit Court alleges the city violated zoning ordinances and failed to conduct required environmental reviews.
Denver spent over $42 million in a single year on migrant hotel placements. Taxpayer advocacy groups filed suit in Denver District Court arguing the spending violated the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, known as TABOR.
| City | Type of Lawsuit | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York City | Contract breach, Fifth Amendment takings | S.D.N.Y. | Active, discovery phase |
| Chicago | Zoning violation, resident class action | Cook County Circuit | Pending class certification |
| Denver | Taxpayer TABOR challenge | Denver District Court | Survived motion to dismiss |
| Los Angeles | Property damage, lease disputes | L.A. Superior Court | Early filing stage |
| Boston | Nuisance and public safety claims | Suffolk Superior Court | Filed 2025 |
These are not copycat suits. Each city’s legal exposure differs based on how their specific programs were structured and funded.
Key Takeaway: New York, Chicago, and Denver face the most legally advanced migrant shelter hotel lawsuits heading into 2026, with active discovery in federal and state courts.
Hotel Owners Suing Over Migrant Shelter Mandates
Hotel owners have some of the strongest legal standing in these cases, and their lawsuits are gaining traction in court.
The core argument: the government cannot force a private business to convert its property into a public shelter without paying fair market compensation. When cities threatened hotels with loss of permits, emergency mandates, or public pressure campaigns to get them to sign shelter agreements, those owners now argue the agreements were not truly voluntary.
Think of it like this: if someone puts a gun on the table during a contract negotiation, the contract doesn’t hold up in court. Several hotel owners are making exactly that argument, claiming their shelter agreements were signed under economic duress.
- Hotel owners claim cities promised full property damage coverage, then refused to pay repair bills ranging from $200,000 to over $1 million per property
- Some owners say cities withheld final lease payments after contracts ended
- Others allege the city’s shelter program violated local fire codes, creating liability for the hotel owner
| Hotel Owner Claim | Legal Basis | Potential Recovery |
|---|---|---|
| Forced conversion without consent | Fifth Amendment takings | Fair market compensation |
| Unpaid property damage | Contract breach | Actual repair costs |
| Economic duress in contract signing | Contract voidability | Contract rescission + damages |
| License and permit threats | Due process violation | Injunctive relief + damages |
The Hotel Association of New York City has backed several of its member properties in these suits, lending organizational weight to what might otherwise be individual disputes.
Neighborhood Residents Suing Over Migrant Hotels
Residents living near hotels converted to migrant shelters have filed their own lawsuits, separate from the hotel owner cases.
These suits generally fall into two categories. The first involves nuisance claims: residents allege increased crime, public disorder, and health hazards near shelter hotels. The second involves process claims: residents argue cities bypassed required public hearings and zoning approvals when converting hotels.
In Chicago’s Cook County case, residents of neighborhoods near converted properties submitted declarations describing incidents of loitering, property damage to nearby homes, and reduced property values. Their attorneys argue the city’s failure to hold zoning hearings denied residents the right to object before the conversions happened.
- Nuisance lawsuits require proof of specific harm to the individual plaintiff, not just general neighborhood concern
- Zoning challenge suits have a stronger procedural footing because cities clearly skipped standard approval processes in many cases
- Property value decline claims face a higher evidentiary burden and typically require expert appraisal testimony
Bold fact: Property values near two hotel shelter locations in Queens, New York, dropped an average of 8.2% according to real estate data cited in a 2025 court filing.
Resident lawsuits are harder to win than hotel owner suits, but several have survived early dismissal and are now in active litigation.
Taxpayer Lawsuit Migrant Hotel Program
Taxpayers have filed lawsuits arguing that city and state governments spent public funds on migrant hotel programs in ways that violated fiscal accountability laws.
The Denver TABOR lawsuit is the clearest example. Colorado’s constitution requires voter approval for new government spending that exceeds revenue limits. Taxpayer plaintiffs argue Denver’s $42 million in migrant hotel spending triggered that requirement but was never put to voters.
New York taxpayer suits take a different angle. Several plaintiffs argue that the city’s migrant hotel contracts were awarded without competitive bidding, violating procurement laws designed to prevent waste and corruption. One audit found that some hotel contracts paid nightly rates 40% above market rate for comparable rooms.
| Taxpayer Lawsuit Type | Legal Basis | City Involved |
|---|---|---|
| TABOR spending violation | Colorado Constitution | Denver |
| No-bid contract challenge | Procurement law | New York City |
| Emergency fund misuse | State budget statute | Chicago |
| Federal fund accountability | Congressional appropriations rules | Multiple cities |
These suits don’t pay money directly to individual taxpayers in most cases. What they can do is force cities to claw back overpayments, cancel future contracts, or restructure programs entirely.
Key Takeaway: Taxpayer lawsuits are reshaping how cities can fund migrant hotel programs going forward, with Denver and New York facing the strongest fiscal accountability challenges in 2026.
Migrant Shelter Lawsuit Eligibility: Who Can File?
Not everyone affected by a migrant shelter hotel program has legal standing to sue, and understanding eligibility is the first step.
Legal standing in these cases requires you to show a specific, personal injury caused by the program, not just general objection to the policy. Courts have been consistent about this. Vague discomfort with government policy does not create a lawsuit. Documented financial harm, property damage, or constitutional violation does.
Who likely qualifies to file:
- Hotel and motel owners who signed lease agreements with the city and suffered property damage, unpaid compensation, or lease disputes
- Business owners directly adjacent to shelter hotels who suffered documented revenue loss
- Residents within a defined proximity (typically within 1,000 feet) of a converted hotel who can document specific harm
- Taxpayers in jurisdictions where spending violated specific fiscal statutes (like Colorado’s TABOR)
- Hotel guests who were displaced mid-stay without proper notice or compensation
Who likely does not qualify:
- General community members who dislike the policy but cannot show personal financial or property harm
- Residents outside the geographic impact zone
- Business owners with no documented revenue data showing causal connection to the shelter program
| Group | Likely Standing | Key Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Hotel owners | Strong | Signed lease or forced conversion |
| Adjacent business owners | Moderate | Revenue documentation |
| Nearby residents | Moderate | Documented specific harm |
| Taxpayers | Moderate (varies by state) | Fiscal statute violation |
| Displaced hotel guests | Moderate | Proof of booking and displacement |
| General public | Weak | Cannot show personal harm |
An attorney reviewing your specific situation can assess standing more precisely. The key is documentation: save contracts, receipts, incident reports, and property damage evidence.
Constitutional Rights and the Migrant Hotel Lawsuit
Several of the strongest migrant shelter hotel lawsuits rest on constitutional arguments, not just contract law.
The constitutional cases break into two main theories. First, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause says the government cannot take private property for public use without paying just compensation. Second, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires fair procedures before the government deprives someone of property rights.
These aren’t abstract legal theories. They are the same principles used in eminent domain cases where cities buy land for highways or parks.
- If a city forces a hotel into a shelter program without the owner’s genuine consent, that may constitute a regulatory taking
- If residents are denied public hearings before a hotel is converted, that may violate procedural due process
- If contracts are structured to deprive owners of property value without fair compensation, courts may treat that as a de facto taking
The constitutional cases are the most powerful because winning them doesn’t just get you money. It can end an entire program or force government to restructure how it operates.
Bold fact: The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid expanded what counts as a regulatory taking, giving hotel owner attorneys a stronger foundation for these arguments in 2026.
Fifth Amendment Hotel Takings Lawsuit Explained
The Fifth Amendment hotel takings lawsuit theory is the most legally significant argument in the entire migrant shelter litigation wave.
Here’s the plain-language version: the Fifth Amendment says the government can take your property for public use, but it has to pay you for it. That’s called eminent domain or a “taking.” What’s newer is the idea of a “regulatory taking,” where the government doesn’t physically seize your property but regulates it so heavily that you lose its economic value. Courts have increasingly recognized this as compensable.
When a city tells a hotel it must house migrants or face permit revocation, and the hotel owner signs a below-market agreement under that pressure, the owner’s attorneys argue the city effectively “took” the hotel’s market use without fair compensation.
| Takings Claim Element | What Plaintiff Must Show |
|---|---|
| Government action | City mandate, threat, or forced agreement |
| Private property interest | Hotel ownership or long-term lease rights |
| Economic impact | Revenue loss, below-market rates, damage costs |
| Reasonable investment expectations | Hotel was operating commercially before mandate |
| No just compensation paid | City paid below fair market rate or refused to pay |
Courts have not uniformly accepted this theory. Some judges have found that voluntary contracts, even signed under financial pressure, break the takings chain. But others have allowed these claims to proceed, and 2026 is likely to produce the first significant appellate rulings on the question.
Key Takeaway: The Fifth Amendment takings theory gives hotel owners one of the most powerful constitutional weapons available, and 2026 appellate decisions may set binding precedent for the entire country.
Migrant Shelter Hotel Contract Violations
Contract violation claims are the most straightforward part of the migrant shelter hotel lawsuit wave, and in many ways the easiest to prove.
Many hotel owners signed lease agreements with cities or their shelter contractors that included specific promises: nightly payment rates, property damage coverage, timely payment schedules, and exit provisions allowing the hotel to reclaim its property. Plaintiffs allege cities broke nearly every one of those terms.
Common alleged contract breaches include:
- Cities paying below the agreed nightly rate after the contract period began
- Failure to cover property damage as promised, with repair bills left entirely to the hotel owner
- Extensions of shelter programs beyond the agreed end date without owner consent
- Destruction of hotel amenities, furniture, and fixtures with no compensation
- Cities refusing to vacate properties within the agreed timeline
One New York hotel owner’s lawsuit, filed in 2024, documents $1.4 million in unreimbursed property damage after a two-year shelter contract ended. The city’s response was that damage exceeded what was “reasonably foreseeable.” The hotel owner’s attorneys counter that the contract said all damage was covered, period.
| Contract Term Claimed | Alleged City Breach |
|---|---|
| Agreed nightly rate | City paid 20 to 30% below contracted amount |
| Property damage coverage | City denied claims citing “normal wear and tear” |
| Contract end date | Program extended 6 to 18 months without consent |
| Exit and vacancy timeline | City holdover tenants remained weeks after contract end |
These contract cases do not require constitutional arguments. They go through normal civil contract litigation and are often handled in state court.
Class Action Migrant Shelter Hotel: Is One Pending?
Yes, class action lawsuits targeting migrant shelter hotel programs are actively being pursued in multiple jurisdictions as of 2026.
A class action groups together many plaintiffs with similar claims against the same defendant. For migrant shelter hotel cases, class actions make the most sense when many hotel owners or many residents in the same city suffered the same type of harm from the same government program.
The Chicago case in Cook County Circuit Court is the most advanced class action as of 2026. It groups together residents from multiple neighborhoods near shelter hotels, with the class potentially covering several thousand plaintiffs. Class certification hearings were scheduled for early 2026.
| Class Action Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Most advanced case | Chicago, Cook County Circuit Court |
| Proposed class size | Estimated 3,000 to 7,000 plaintiffs |
| Class certification | Hearings scheduled early 2026 |
| Named plaintiffs | Multiple neighborhood association leaders |
| Defendant | City of Chicago, Department of Housing |
| Core claim | Zoning violation, nuisance, due process |
A separate class action covering New York hotel owners is in earlier stages. It seeks to consolidate dozens of individual hotel breach-of-contract cases into a single proceeding, which would dramatically increase negotiating leverage against the city.
Class actions tend to produce lower individual payouts than individual suits but are more accessible for plaintiffs who cannot afford to litigate alone.
Migrant Hotel Lawsuit Settlement Amount: What Could You Get?
Settlement amounts in these cases vary enormously depending on the type of plaintiff and the strength of the claim.
No large, publicized settlements have been finalized as of the time of writing, because most of these cases are still in litigation. However, demands filed with courts and settlement negotiations reported in court documents give a sense of the financial range.
- Individual hotel owners with documented property damage are seeking between $200,000 and $3 million per property in current filings
- Resident class action plaintiffs in Chicago are seeking statutory damages plus injunctive relief; per-plaintiff estimates range from $5,000 to $25,000 depending on proximity and documented harm
- Taxpayer suits typically seek injunctive relief (stopping future spending) rather than direct payments to plaintiffs
- Displaced hotel guest claims are smaller, typically seeking $500 to $5,000 for out-of-pocket costs and inconvenience
| Plaintiff Type | Estimated Recovery Range | Primary Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Hotel owners (property damage) | $200,000 to $3 million | Contract breach, takings |
| Hotel owners (lost revenue) | $50,000 to $500,000 | Lost business income |
| Resident class action members | $5,000 to $25,000 | Nuisance, zoning |
| Displaced hotel guests | $500 to $5,000 | Displacement, booking breach |
| Taxpayer plaintiffs | Injunctive relief primarily | Fiscal statute violations |
These are demand ranges, not guaranteed payouts. Actual settlements will depend on negotiation and court rulings.
Key Takeaway: Hotel owners stand to recover the largest individual amounts in migrant shelter hotel lawsuits, while resident class action members may see smaller individual payouts but benefit from collective legal power.
Migrant Hotel Residents Lawsuit: When the Residents Are Migrants
There is a separate and often overlooked category in this litigation: lawsuits filed by the migrants and asylum seekers themselves who were housed in these hotels.
Some migrant residents have filed legal claims against cities and shelter contractors alleging inadequate living conditions, illegal evictions from shelter hotels, and violations of basic welfare standards. These cases run in parallel to the hotel owner and neighborhood resident suits.
In New York, Legal Aid Society attorneys filed actions on behalf of migrant shelter residents who were moved out of hotel properties abruptly, sometimes with less than 24 hours notice, as cities shifted program logistics.
- Migrant residents in New York filed at least 14 individual claims between 2024 and 2025 related to abrupt hotel shelter transfers
- Claims cite violations of New York City’s “Right to Shelter” consent decree, which guarantees certain standards
- Some claims allege that conditions in hotel shelters violated basic health and safety codes
These cases are legally distinct from hotel owner or taxpayer suits. They arise under different statutes and constitutional provisions, primarily focusing on welfare rights and basic due process protections for vulnerable populations.
How to File a Claim in a Migrant Shelter Hotel Lawsuit
Filing a claim depends on which category of plaintiff you are and which specific lawsuit or program applies to your situation.
For hotel owners, the first step is documenting all damages thoroughly: photographs, repair estimates, invoices, communications with city officials, and the original lease or shelter agreement. That documentation package is what attorneys use to assess the strength of your claim.
For residents, document specific incidents with dates, times, police reports, and any evidence of financial harm such as medical bills, property damage repair costs, or real estate appraisals showing value decline.
General steps to initiate a claim:
- Gather all documentation of harm (contracts, invoices, photos, incident reports, correspondence)
- Identify the specific government entity responsible (city, state agency, or private shelter contractor)
- Determine whether your claim belongs in state or federal court based on the legal theory
- File a notice of claim against the government (most jurisdictions require this before suing a city)
- In New York City specifically, a Notice of Claim must be filed within 90 days of the incident
- In Chicago, the statutory notice period for claims against the city is 6 months
- Consult a civil litigation attorney familiar with government liability or constitutional takings cases
| Step | Action Required | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Document all harm | Immediately |
| 2 | File Notice of Claim (NYC) | Within 90 days of harm |
| 3 | File Notice of Claim (Chicago) | Within 6 months of harm |
| 4 | File actual lawsuit | Statute of limitations varies by state (typically 3 years) |
| 5 | Respond to discovery requests | As ordered by court |
Missing the notice of claim deadline can permanently bar your right to sue, even if your underlying case is strong.
Migrant Hotel Lawsuit Timeline 2026: What to Expect
The migrant hotel lawsuit timeline for 2026 is shaped by where these cases were in their legal progression at the end of 2025.
Several cases entered discovery in late 2025, meaning attorneys are now exchanging documents, taking depositions, and building evidentiary records. Discovery in complex government liability cases typically takes 12 to 18 months. That puts the first trials or major settlements in the late 2026 to mid-2027 window.
The Chicago class action is moving faster because class actions have compressed schedules after certification. If the class is certified in early 2026, a settlement could be negotiated by the end of the year.
| Phase | Expected Timing |
|---|---|
| Class certification hearings (Chicago) | Q1 2026 |
| Federal court discovery completion (NYC) | Mid-2026 |
| First appellate rulings on Fifth Amendment claims | Q2 to Q3 2026 |
| Potential settlement negotiations | Q3 to Q4 2026 |
| First trials (if no settlement) | Late 2026 to 2027 |
| Potential final payouts | 2027 and beyond |
Courts move at their own pace. Political pressure is a factor too: city governments facing election cycles in 2026 may prefer to settle quietly rather than go to trial.
Think of it like a freight train. These cases started slow and are now building real momentum. The second half of 2026 is when you’ll see the clearest picture of where this all lands.
Migrant Shelter Hotel Lawsuit Updates 2026
The most significant development as of 2026 is the consolidation of cases and the first major rulings on constitutional questions.
In the Southern District of New York, a federal judge issued a ruling in early 2026 allowing Fifth Amendment takings claims by hotel owners to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage. That ruling means the constitutional theory has survived its first real test, and cities can no longer argue these claims are meritless at the outset.
In Colorado, Denver’s attempt to have the TABOR taxpayer lawsuit dismissed failed in late 2025. The case is now in discovery, with the city required to produce financial records on all migrant hotel contracts.
- A Brooklyn hotel owner secured a preliminary injunction in 2025 preventing the city from extending a shelter contract without renegotiation
- The New York state legislature introduced bills in early 2026 that would create formal procurement requirements for future hotel shelter contracts
- Federal oversight through DHS has tightened reimbursement rules for cities, reducing the financial incentive for some hotel conversion programs
These developments matter because they shift power. Cities that once had essentially unchecked authority to place migrants in hotels are now operating under court scrutiny and tighter legal constraints.
Key Takeaway: 2026 is a turning point year for migrant shelter hotel lawsuits, with the first constitutional rulings, active discovery, and genuine settlement momentum emerging across multiple jurisdictions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the migrant shelter hotel lawsuit about?
The migrant shelter hotel lawsuit refers to legal actions by hotel owners, residents, and taxpayers against cities that converted hotels into emergency migrant housing.
Plaintiffs allege contract violations, constitutional takings, zoning violations, and fiscal mismanagement.
These cases are active in New York, Chicago, Denver, and other major cities as of 2026.
Can hotel owners sue the city over migrant shelter mandates?
Yes, hotel owners can sue cities over migrant shelter mandates, particularly when they experienced property damage, unpaid lease amounts, or were pressured into signing agreements.
The strongest legal theories are contract breach and Fifth Amendment takings claims.
Several New York hotel owner suits have already survived motion-to-dismiss hearings in federal court.
Who qualifies to join a migrant shelter hotel lawsuit in 2026?
Hotel owners, adjacent business owners with documented revenue loss, nearby residents with specific documented harm, and taxpayers in states with fiscal accountability statutes may qualify.
The key requirement is showing personal, specific harm caused by the shelter program.
General objection to the policy without documented financial or property harm is typically not enough to establish legal standing.
How much money can plaintiffs recover in a migrant hotel lawsuit?
Hotel owners are seeking between $200,000 and $3 million per property in current filings, based on property damage and lost revenue claims.
Resident class action plaintiffs may recover $5,000 to $25,000 individually depending on documented harm and proximity.
No large settlements have been finalized yet, as most cases are still in active litigation in 2026.
What is the filing deadline for a migrant shelter hotel claim in 2026?
Deadlines vary by jurisdiction and claim type.
In New York City, a Notice of Claim must be filed within 90 days of the harm; in Chicago the period is 6 months.
The general statute of limitations for civil suits against the government is typically 3 years, but pre-suit notice deadlines are much shorter and missing them can kill your case.
The migrant shelter hotel lawsuit cases of 2026 represent a serious legal reckoning over the limits of government power during a housing crisis.
If you’re a hotel owner who was pulled into a shelter program, a resident who suffered real documented harm, or a taxpayer in a state with fiscal accountability laws, your window to act is open but it won’t stay open indefinitely.
Document everything now. Identify the specific deadline for your jurisdiction. The cases moving through courts in 2026 will set precedent that shapes what cities can and cannot do with private hotel properties for years to come.
