NY Lesser Included Offenses Updated Reference Guide Now Available
NYSDA has updated its guide to New York Lesser Included Offenses. This chart sets out potential lesser included offenses for various Penal Law and Vehicle and Traffic Law offenses; it includes excerpts from several key New York Court of Appeals decisions and a list of relevant Criminal Procedure Law sections. Older versions of the guide, such as those published in 2017 and 2015 issues of the REPORT, should be replaced with the new version.
 
Disclosure of Police Officers’ Files: A Continuing Battle
Litigation around the repeal of Civil Rights Law 50-a, which had protected police and other agencies’ disciplinary records from disclosure, continues in a variety of matters. Recently, an Appellate Division panel held in a civil case that the lower court “did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew and reargue and, upon renewal and reargument, granting the motion to compel production of the documents at issue without first requiring an in camera review….” The trial court’s initial determination that certain police officer personnel and disciplinary records should not be disclosed had been made in consideration of 50-a; thereafter, 50-a was repealed. The complaint in this civil matter includes “claims against the City defendants for negligent noncompliance with statutory requirements that may be supported by evidence in the personnel and disciplinary records,” the decision says. Zhang v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 05659 (1st Dept 10/14/2021).
 
Any effect of Zhang on the ease with which litigants can obtain police records, especially those predating repeal, remains to be seen. A New England Law Review article published last year described the secrecy in which the New York City police department (NYPD) has historically operated, often “enabled to do so by other agencies …, most notably the City’s Law Department ….” Author Joel Berger said in a footnote that the Law Department “fights vigorously against discovery requests for defendant officers’ disciplinary records, and even if motions to compel discovery oDisclosure of Police Officers’ Files: A Continuing Battlef those records are granted the records thus far have rarely been made public.” He added that “plaintiffs’ lawyers have been required to agree to a Protective Order rendering all disciplinary records obtained in discovery confidential” and have been threatened with contempt or sanctions for referencing publicly any record so protected. “That may change in light of the repeal of 50-a,” Berger said, “but it may not change, given the Law Department’s history of protecting even the worst police officers with its strenuous defense of every civil rights action.”
 
The NYPD itself has certainly continued to push back against the repeal of 50-a. The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) sued the department late last month, as reported by Gothamist.com. The Associated Press also covered the suit’s filing.
 
NYSDA offers assistance to public defense lawyers across the state seeking to ensure that disciplinary records needed to properly represent clients are disclosed. A CLE training late last year, “Focus on FOIL: The Interplay between Article 245 Discovery and the Repeal of CVR 50-a,” provided a wealth of information. News Picks items like this one and those in past editions let defenders know about law enforcement efforts to thwart the reform and efforts to ensure that the repeal is implemented. For example, see “NYCLU Sues Nassau County Police Department” (Oct. 12, 2021, edition) and “Second Circuit Affirms SDNY Ruling, Rejects Challenge By Police Unions to Release of Disciplinary Records” (Feb. 22, 2021, edition). Also, see relevant webpages, including Law Enforcement Resources, at www.nysda.org, and the upcoming FOIL training noted in Association News, below.
 
NYSDA, Others, Submit Amici Curiae Brief in 2nd Dept. Discovery Case
Public defense organizations, including NYSDA, have joined as amici seeking to counter the “distorted interpretation of the plain meaning of CPL § 245.20” (the discovery reform statute) being pressed by the Suffolk County District Attorney in a proceeding under CPLR article 78. A motion for leave to file the amici’s Memorandum of Law in the Second Department has been filed. The Memorandum notes that New York’s current discovery provisions “do not equivocate; they mandate discovery of all material” and were designed to prevent litigation, with delineated procedures for challenging discovery orders that the Suffolk County prosecutor failed to exhaust before seeking article 78 relief. The three Points in the Memorandum are: I. “‘All’ means ‘all.’ Petitioner’s distorted statutory interpretation ignores the express terms of the statute.” II. “Public policy favors disclosure of these documents to ensure that attorneys can adequately protect their clients.” III. “The petition is procedurally barred as Petitioner failed to exhaust all available remedies and challenged a discretionary act.”
 
State Policing Reforms Go into Effect
This spring’s “New York State Professional Policing Act (PPA) of 2021” went into effect on October 16th. Among the changes are minimum hiring standards for all new law enforcement officers, including background checks and a psychological assessment. DCJS has released proposed regulations that comply with those legislative changes: a new 9 NYCRR Part 6000 (Medical and Physical Fitness Standards and Procedures for Police) and a new Part 6056 (Central State Registry of Police Officers and Peace Officers). The new Part 6056 includes amendments to DCJS’s decertification process with the aim that law enforcement officers who have been decertified may become ineligible to serve as a police officer in the state again in the future. For more information, see the DCJS memo and a summary of the changes to the regulations.
 
Breaking News: Governor Signs Criminal Legal System Bills
As this edition of News Picks was being completed, Governor Hochul signed several bills relevant to public defenders and their clients. The new laws include:
 
L. 2021, ch 501: Amends CPL 440.10 to “[p]ermit[] the court to grant post-conviction motions to vacate a judgment when the issue raised upon such motion is ineffective assistance of counsel in certain cases in which the court would otherwise be required to deny the motion.” [Effective 10/25/2021.]
 
L 2021, ch 474: Adds Family Court Act 162-a to prohibit the use of restraints on children under 21 in family courts except in limited circumstances. [Effective 10/8/2021.]
 
L 2021, ch 486: “Removes the prohibition on individuals convicted of a felony that prevents them from being appointed fiduciary of an estate ….” Previously anyone with a felony conviction was barred from serving as an executor/executrix of an estate; under the new law, a court will still have discretion to declare someone ineligible if the prior felony conviction relates to fraud or embezzlement. [Effective 10/22/2021.]
 
L 2021, ch 487: The bill allows individuals under supervision to work night and overtime shifts without being violated for breaking curfew. [Effective 10/22/2021.]
 
L 2021, ch 491: “Relates to certificates of relief from disabilities and certificates of good conduct upon discharge.” Individuals can now apply for a certificate at the time of supervisory discharge, instead of having to wait for three years. [Effective 1/20/2022.]
 
L 2021, ch 492: “Relates to work related labor protests not being considered a parole violation.” Previously there were no protections for people on supervision to participate in work-related labor protests or lawful labor disputes, strikes, or work stoppages or slowdowns; this bill specifically allows them to do so without being violated. [Effective 10/25/2021.]
 
L 2021, ch 494: “Relates to annual reporting on substance use disorder in incarcerated individuals; requires the office of addiction services and supports to monitor programs providing treatment to incarcerated individuals in correctional facilities and provide an annual report.” [Effective 10/23/2021.]
 
Watch for future information from NYSDA about implementation of new laws as they affect representation of clients and those clients’ lives.
 
Bill Would Require “Family Miranda” Warnings
Earlier this year, a bill was introduced in the Senate, S5484-A, that would require child protective services (CPS) workers to disclose information about the rights of parents and caretakers at the initial point of contact with them during an investigation. The “Miranda warning” would need to include information about the allegations being investigated and notice that the person is not required, absent a court order, to let CPS workers into their residence or to talk to them, let the workers interview or examine a child, or agree to requests, such as signing a release of information or submitting to drug or alcohol tests or and a mental health evaluation. The warning must also advise that statements made by the parent, caretaker, or other family member can be used against the parent or caretaker in administrative or court proceedings and that the parent or caretaker is entitled to seek advice of counsel and have an attorney present during questioning. Further, CPS must give parents and caretakers contact information for available resources, including legal services from a designated organization.
 
In New York City, officials and the union for Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) staffers pushed back on similar local legislation. As noted by an article posted by TheCity.NYC, pressure on City Council members led to the removal of bills about written and verbal warnings from a recent scheduled vote on a “Parental Rights package.” The article quoted a New York Civil Liberties Union attorney who said that while “most people know about the Miranda rights to remain silent and have an attorney,” there is a lack of information about rights concerning ACS investigations.
 
Family Defenders Testify on the Need for Reform of the Family Regulatory System
On October 21st, the New York State Assembly Standing Committee on Children and Families held a public hearing in NYC on family involvement in the child welfare system. The stated purpose was “to examine the child welfare system, including ways in which families initially interact with and enter the system, as well as potential outcomes, services and supports that may be available.”
 
As reported in the Imprint Youth and Family News, numerous family defense advocates spoke at last Thursday’s hearing, in hopes of impressing upon the Committee the need to pass impactful legislation to protect poor Black and brown families from the intrusive family regulatory system, including the “Family Court Miranda Bill” discussed above. Among those who testified were Nila Natarajan, Supervising Attorney & Policy Counsel, Family Defense Practice, Brooklyn Defender Services. Natarajan, citing a 2015 report from the NYS Office of Children and Family Services, noted that, “[i]n New York City, Black and Latinx/Hispanic/Latino/a/é children are 13 times more likely than a white child to be placed in the foster system. Outside of New York City, Black and Latinx/Hispanic/Latino/a/é children are 5 times more likely to be placed in the foster system as compared to white children.” [Footnotes omitted.] Her written testimony is available here. Joyce McMillan, founder of JMacForFamilies and the Parent Legislative Action Network, who also testified, “demanded greater accountability in a system they describe as so broken it has to be scrapped.” Among others who spoke during the nearly eight hour hearing were Miriam Mack, Policy Counsel from the Bronx Defenders, Zainab Akbar, Managing Attorney from Neighborhood Defender Services, and Chris Gottlieb, Co-Director of the NYU Family Defense Clinic. Video of the hearing is available on the Assembly website here.
 
Families Need More Support from the State, Less Reporting to State Central Register to Make It through the Pandemic and Beyond
An op-ed published in the Daily News by Martinez Alonzo, a staff attorney in the Manhattan Office of Legal Services NYC, shines light on the issue of how overreporting by school personnel of perceived neglect disproportionately affects Black and brown families who are just trying to make it through the pandemic unscathed. At the height of the pandemic, ACS and the police visited some parents from minority communities after the parents told their schools that they had not yet received tablets or were having other challenges with remote learning. Now, when parents from those same communities are choosing to keep their children home for COVID-19-related health and safety concerns, they have to worry about whether they are going to get another knock at the door from ACS. Alonzo argues that disproportionate and unnecessary reporting made to the State Central Register equates to punishing families for being poor. “Though educators may think they’re acting in the best interests of children; this is roughly akin to calling the cops on someone for a crime of poverty.” He instead urges that, “[n]ow more than ever, struggling families need direct assistance from New York State in the form of emergency rental assistance, school programs to help their children catch up, extended eviction moratoriums, and other protections — not more family regulations, policing and unnecessary intervention.”
 
Court Reverses Manslaughter Charge Resulting From Overdose
As reported in the New York Law Journal and Daily Record, New York’s highest court reversed a manslaughter charge in the case of People v Gaworecki. In the Court’s decision, Judge Fahey wrote, “we are concerned with two culpable mental states defined in the Penal Law: recklessness and criminal negligence (see Penal Law § 15.05). Recklessness is the mens rea necessary for manslaughter in the second degree (see Penal Law § 125.15 [1]). Criminal negligence is the mental state necessary to support a charge of criminally negligent homicide (see id. § 125.10). ’It is undisputed here that criminally negligent homicide is a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree’ (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).” The Court went on to state that the “evidence demonstrated that defendant knew that the heroin he sold the decedent was strong and required caution. That the heroin was potent, however, does not equate to a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would result from the use of the heroin.”
 
MA High Court Reverses Murder Conviction, Expert Testimony Improper
In Commonwealth v Rintala, the prosecution introduced expert testimony, based on the expert’s “own experiments” of spilling paint. The expert's testimony was that paint found at the crime scene was poured deliberately and not spilled and that the paint was poured no more than four hours before photographs were taken of the crime scene. The defense sought to preclude such testimony, arguing that the proffered testimony did not satisfy the Daubert-Lanigan reliability standard because his testimony was “nothing more than anecdotal observations that have not been tested by the scientific method.” The trial court denied the defendant’s motion and allowed the expert to testify. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found the experiments “do not appear to have been performed consistently with basic scientific principles.” It quoted the 2009 National Research Council (of the National Academies of Sciences) [NAS Report] that “[a]dherence to scientific principles is important for concrete reasons .…The reliability of forensic science methods is greatly enhanced when those principles are followed.” [Footnote omitted]. The Court ultimately stated, “[w]e conclude that the admission of the expert testimony as to the timing and manner of application of paint in the basement was error. Because the error was prejudicial,” the judgment must be vacated. The decision was covered by the Daily Hampshire Gazette and Law and Crime.
 
Forensic Articles, News, and Announcements

Transfer of DNA Without Contact from Used Clothing, Pillowcases and Towels by Shaking Agitation                                                  
Abstract available here. “Conclusion: Overall, this study’s primary focus was on generating data to inform of the possibility of indirect DNA transfer without contact from used personal items to another surface to further the understanding of DNA transfer without contact and to determine the possibility of DNA transfer without contact in a more realistic scenario than previous laboratory experiments. The results demonstrated that a considerable amount of DNA can transfer from personal used items without contact by even a relatively gentle agitation and appear similar to the profile generated from a primary surface. It demonstrated that forensic investigators need to consider this form of DNA transfer as a potential variable factor in proposed DNA transfer pathways during the activity under investigation.” For a copy of the full article, please contact the Public Defense Backup Center at info@nysda.org or (518) 465-3524.
 
Accuracy and Reproducibility of Conclusions by Forensic Bloodstain Pattern Analysts
Available here. “Abstract: Although the analysis of bloodstain pattern evidence left at crime scenes relies on the expert opinions of bloodstain pattern analysts, the accuracy and reproducibility of these conclusions have never been rigorously evaluated at a large scale. We investigated conclusions made by 75 practicing bloodstain pattern analysts on 192 bloodstain patterns selected to be broadly representative of operational casework, resulting in 33,005 responses to prompts and 1760 short text responses. Our results show that conclusions were often erroneous and often contradicted other analysts. On samples with known causes, 11.2% of responses were erroneous. The results show limited reproducibility of conclusions: 7.8% of responses contradicted other analysts. The disagreements with respect to the meaning and usage of BPA terminology and classifications suggest a need for improved standards. Both semantic differences and contradictory interpretations contributed to errors and disagreements, which could have serious implications if they occurred in casework.”
 
Second Public Comment Period for NISTIR-8351-DRAFT Report: Oct. 22 to Nov.19, 2021
As noted on its website, “[t]he National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is reopening the comment period on the NIST Internal Report 8351-DRAFT, DNA Mixture Interpretation: A NIST Scientific Foundation Review, to receive additional comments, new data, or information. Written comments and related material must be submitted to scientificfoundationreviews@nist.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Nov. 19, 2021.” Note that “[a]ll comments received to date will be considered and need not be resubmitted. If any commenters who have already submitted comments wish to provide supplemental or updated comments, we encourage them to do so.” The draft report and video of a webinar about the report and its findings are available at the link above.
 
See the training announcements below with registration links to attend NYSDA’s upcoming DNA Trainings and visit our Forensic Resource page for additional resources.
 
Transfer from Rikers to Westchester Facilities
On October 13, Mayor DeBlasio and Governor Hochul announced that almost 230 women and trans people currently incarcerated at Rikers Island would be temporarily transferred to Bedford Hills and Taconic correctional facilities in Westchester. NYC DOC will provide transportation for incarcerated individual’s family members starting on October 22.
 
The move was applauded by Former Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman who called it “another sensible step.” However Tina Luongo, The Legal Aid Society’s Attorney-in-Charge of the Criminal Defense Practice, said that it would “throw[] into chaos a carefully calibrated web of services which ensures that women are prepared for reentry back into society upon release,” concluding that it was a “bad idea.” See more news coverage at Gothamist, LoHud, The Nation, and The New York Times. The Immigrant Defense Project has issued advisories for defense counsel and immigration counsel on the possible negative consequences to non-citizen clients who are transferred to DOCCS custody.
 
Closure of MCC
According to a filing in the Eastern District of New York last week, Manhattan’s federal Metropolitan Correctional Center should be closed imminently. The facility’s population is down to 21 people, with everyone scheduled to be transferred to Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center by the end of the week. According to the Federal Defenders of New York, the situation at MCC has become all the more dire recently, with clients locked in their cells, unable to flush overflowing toilets, and served still frozen food for dinner. News that the facility was set to close was announced in August.
 
More coverage can be found in The New York Law Journal and The New York Times. More information on the underlying suit between Federal Defenders and the Bureau of Prisons can be found here.
 
Bryant Testifies at Hearing on End Predatory Court Fees Act
NYSDA’s Executive Director, Susan C. Bryant, was among those who testified at a hearing before the State Senate Standing Committee on Crime Victims, Crime and Correction on Oct. 12, 2021. The subject was S3079-C/A2348-B, the “End Predatory Court Fees Act.” As noted in CBS6Albany.com coverage of a rally held ahead of the hearing, the bill “would eliminate court, parole, and probation fees, mandatory minimum fines, incarceration on the basis of unpaid fines and fees, and garnishment of commissary accounts for unpaid fines and fees.” Bryant’s written testimony stressed that “NYSDA and its allies have long noted and sought to end the harm done by fees, surcharges, and fines that clients cannot afford to pay,” and referenced an array of sources describing that harm. She noted that the bill, along with already-passed legislation such as the Driver’s License Suspension Reform Act (L 2020, ch 382) and others, “would bring us closer to a more just and fair criminal legal system.” An advisory issued by No Price on Justice about the rally and hearing also provided information about the issue.
 
Cannabis Social Equity Coalition – NYS Offers Recommendations
A “statewide coalition of individuals, community organizations and business professionals” made up of “individuals and communities ‘Most Harmed’ by the marijuana drug laws in New York State and by the broader War on Drugs policies dating back to the 1970s,” has published an open letter to Gov. Kathy Hochul and the Cannabis Control Board introducing 14 recommendations for implementing the Marijuana Reform and Taxation Act (MRTA). The Cannabis Social Equity Coalition – NYS (CSEC-NYS) is connected with Citizens Against Recidivism, Inc., whose co/founder and Executive Director, Mika’il DeVeaux, is the Chairman of CSEC-NYS.
 
Defenders may have been focusing on aspects of the MRTA dealing with lawful and unlawful possession and sale, sealing and expungement, searches based on odor of cannabis, and use of cannabis by people under supervision or involved in family legal matters. See, e.g., the April 9th edition of News Picks. But the success (or failure) of the MRTA’s “social equity” is also of concern. As a lawyer with expertise in cannabis business said in an August 9th New York Law Journal article, “[s]ocial equity concerns run deep throughout MRTA, resulting in legislation which in many ways is anti-big business and pro-small business,” and the hope is that “MRTA, and the new cannabis license applicants that it enables, will usher in hundreds of new businesses and create thousands of new jobs for New York.” CSEC-NYS does not take for granted that any economic improvement resulting from MRTA will flow to people and communities devastated by the enforcement of anti-marijuana laws over decades.
 
Diagnosis Description May Affect Clinician Beliefs
Language matters. A recent demonstration of that is an article on STAT entitled, “Saying ‘person with schizophrenia,’ not ‘schizophrenic,’ can affect clinician beliefs, study finds.” The article says that “[t]he study, published Wednesday in the Journal of Counseling & Development, adds to a broader social conversation but sparse scientific literature supporting person-first language, which is meant to de-stigmatize disabilities, mental health conditions, and other conditions.” It also notes that “[o]utside of clinical practice, person-first language is not universally accepted for every condition or disability,” as some groups choose “identity-first” language.
 
For public defense lawyers, “people first” language is important not only as to clinical conditions but also as to other “labels” that can dehumanize clients, witnesses, and others. See, for example, “Language Matters, as to Race and Beyond,” in the October-December 2020 issue of the Backup Center REPORT (at page 7).



Association News

NYSDA’s series continues on The Past, Present, and Future of Forensic DNA Typing: What you need to know to defend your cases, with Jenny Cheung, Staff Attorney at The Legal Aid Society’s DNA Unit & Homicide Defense Task Force; Elizabeth Daniel Vasquez, Director of the Science & Surveillance Project at Brooklyn Defender Services; Jessica Goldthwaite, Staff Attorney at The Legal Aid Society’s DNA Unit; and Kate Philpott, Forensic Consultant. The sessions are scheduled for Friday afternoons from 2:00 – 4:00 pm and will provide 2.0 CLE credits in Professional Practice. The second and third parts are as follows:
 
  • Friday, October 29, 2021: The Present: DNA Interpretations by the Computer’s Eye (Reviewing the basics of probabilistic genotyping, and preparing defenders for cases involving STRMix or TrueAllele’s interpretation of DNA results.) Click here to register.
  • Friday November 19, 2021: The Future: DNA Interpretations Don’t Matter (Reviewing the basics of transfer and persistence, and preparing defenses for cases involving seemingly inculpatory DNA results.) Click here to register.
 
The cost is $25 per person, per session; $20 per person per session for offices sending five or more attorneys.
 
Wednesday November 3, 2021, 1:00 – 3:00 pm: Counsel at First Appearance (CAFA): Ethical and Effective Arraignment Advocacy for Implementing 2020 Bail Law Reforms, with Arline Hanna, Second Assistant Public Defender, Wayne County Public Defender’s Office, and Yung-Mi Lee, Legal Director, Brooklyn Defender Services. The program will offer 2.0 CLE credits with 1.5 credits in Professional Practice and .5 credits in Ethics and Professionalism. There will be no cost for this program, but pre-registration is required. For details and program registration, click here.
 
Friday, November 5, 2021, 9:00 am – 4:15 pm: 2021 Criminal and Family Defense Update. Topics will include Fun with FOIL: Using FOIL as a Defense Practice Tool, Less is More Review and Practice, Family Law Update, and Representing Parents in Sex Abuse Cases. The cost is $55 per person, $45 per person for programs sending 5 or more attendees. For details and program registration, click here.
 
Monday, November 8, 2021, 1:00 – 2:30 pm: The Basics of Defending Clients in Child Support Contempt Proceedings, with Amanda McHenry, Supervising Attorney, Family Court Program, Hiscock Legal Aid Society, and John Menard, Assistant Public Defender, Family Court Bureau, Monroe County Public Defender’s Office. This program will provide 1.5 CLE credits. There is no cost for the program, but pre-registration is required. For details and program registration, click here.
 
Tuesday, November 9, and Tuesday, November 16, 2021, 1:00 – 4:30 pm: The Fundamentals of Veteran Representation- Parts 1 and 2, with NYSDA Veterans Defense Program Director Gary Horton; Deputy Director Roy Diehl; and Staff Attorney Blair Hill. There is no cost for these programs, but pre-registration for each day is required. For details and program registration, click here.
 
November 30, 2021, 1:00 – 4:15 pm: NYSDA will be presenting a program on CPL Article 245 Discovery Review and Update on Emerging Practice Issues, with presenters from The Bronx Defenders: Aimee Carlise, Senior Attorney, Legal Department, Criminal Defense Practice; Ilona Coleman, Legal Director, Criminal Defense Practice; Ruth Hamilton, Senior Attorney, Legal Department, Criminal Defense Practice; and Defne Ozgediz, Senior Attorney, Criminal Defense Practice. Part 1 will cover The Prosecution’s Discovery Obligations, Subpoenas, and Prosecutors’ Certificates of Compliance; Part 2 will cover Calculating 30.30 Time, Omnibus Motion Practice, Protective Orders, and Defense Discovery Obligations. There is no cost for this program, but preregistration will be required. More details and registration information coming soon.
 
Thursday, December 9, 2021: Litigating in Color: NYSDA is partnering with the Black Public Defender Association, a section of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA), to present an all-day virtual training/CLE program designed to enhance the capacity of family court defenders throughout the state to advocate for their clients through a racial justice lens. The goal of this intensive skills training is to train defenders to raise race issues and have difficult conversations about race in an advocacy setting, and to encourage and support defenders to challenge racial injustices through legal advocacy. This free program is presented with support from The New York State Bar Foundation. Full program details and registration information will be released in the coming weeks. For specific questions related to this training, please reach out to our Family Court Staff Attorney, Kim Bode, at kbode@nysda.org.
 
Thursday, December 16, 2021, 3:00 - 5:00 pm: Whose Witness Is It Anyway? Ethical Issues in Communicating with Witnesses, with Jill Paperno, First Assistant Public Defender, Monroe County Public Defender’s Office. The program will provide 2.0 CLE hours in Ethics and Professionalism. There is no cost for this program, but pre-registration is required. Details and registration information coming soon.