No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Daughters Of Sarah Nursing Center

180 Washington Ave Ext, Albany, NY 12203 · Non profit - Corporation · 210 certified beds · (518) 456-7831 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (518) 456-7831 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 13 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1971 Western Ave #239 350 · (888) 963-9963 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
12 Interstate Ave · (518) 452-7795 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
48 Railroad Ave · (518) 226-8700 · Call to confirm hours
Park
136 Fuller Rd · (518) 434-5300 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
1400 Washington Ave · (518) 442-5591

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased14.9%14.1%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.5%5.8%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.1%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.9%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.9%19.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.1%3.1%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened15.2%12.5%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication9.8%13.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine93.1%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.6%6.5%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control21.2%19.5%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table13.5%13.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.2%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine88.4%78.8%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission19.5%20.6%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit7.6%9.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.261.701.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.541.361.80better

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

39.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 389 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

39.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.1%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
59.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.38U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.18hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.17hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 59.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 169 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 64% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF39.1%CMS range 35.0–44.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024worse than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.1%CMS range 8.1–13.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge59.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge61.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge61.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified98.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting97.1%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened3.5%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.6%CMS range 4.3–9.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.941.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.35
RN hours/ resident / day
1.07
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.08
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.50
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.21
RN hoursweekends
42.3%
Total nursing turnover
30.4%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 210 beds and averages 204.0 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.35 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.08 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.64 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-09-09)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2021-10-18)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · D2026-05-29 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interviews conducted during a survey, the facility failed to immediately notify the resident's legal representative of a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status, for one (1) out of three (3) residents reviewed for notification of changes. Specifically, when Resident #1 experienced a vasovagal episode (a sudden, temporary drop in heart rate and blood pressure that reduces blood flow to the brain, leading to brief fainting) and episodes of vomiting on 05/14/2026, Family Member #2 was not notified. Findings include: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of pneumonitis due to inhalation of food and vomit (an inflammation of the tiny air sacs in the lungs, usually triggered by inhaling foreign substances,) dysphagia (difficulty swallowing food, liquids, or saliva) and stage three (3) chronic kidney disease (moderate kidney damage). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 05/06/2026, documented the resident could sometimes be understood, could sometimes understand others, and had moderate cognitive…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-09 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure treatment with respect, dignity, and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 3 (Resident #'s 33, 86 and 197) of 35 residents reviewed for dignity. Specifically, (a.) Resident #33 stated Certified Nurse Aide #3's tone of voice was rude, they felt rushed during care and requested Certified Nurse Aide #3 not to be assigned to them as caregiver; (b.) Resident #86 stated they waited a long time for care and then the care was rushed; (c.) Resident #197 stated Certified Nurse Aide #3 was argumentative and used inappropriate language. This is evidenced by: New York State Department of Health Division of Nursing Homes and ICF/IID Surveillance, Resident Rights Handbook, documented: As a resident in this facility, they have rights guaranteed to them by state and federal…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-09 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not promoted and facilitated the residents right to self-determination through support of resident choice. Specifically, the facility did not provide accommodations for heating of food brought to residents from outside the facility. This was evident for Resident #5. This is evidenced by: Facility's policy titled, Resident Personal Food and dated 11/2021, documented resident personal food (food not provided by facility) should be ready to eat, requiring little or no preparation. Food requiring refrigeration may be stored in the unit kitchenette refrigerator or personal refrigerator provided by resident/resident representative. Resident personal food could not require re-heating. At all times, residents who were unable to access their personal food or eat independently would be assisted by facility staff, as needed. It further documented the facility was a 'Kosher' facility. All food served by the facility was prepared in accordance with traditional Jewish rules of Kashrut,…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-09 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, (a.) opened medications had no open and/or expiration dates; (b.) pre-poured medication cup was noted in medication cart (c.); medication refrigerator temperature was outside of therapeutic range; and (d.) non-medication items were stored in medication cart for 2 (Green and Purple unit medication carts) of 3 medication carts reviewed and 3 (Green, Red, and Purple) of 3 medication storage rooms reviewed. This is evidenced by: The facility's Medication Administration Guidelines, last reviewed 2/2024, Section III. 6, documented each nurse was responsible to date and time all multi-dose vials, and maintain pharmacy standards regarding storage and time between opening and discarding. All scheduled medications would be signed for as administered or not administered. Reason for non-administration was required and would be noted by using the reason code…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and staff interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure infection prevention control practices were followed to help prevent the spread, development, and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the staff did not put on and take off personal protective equipment correctly when entering and exiting the room of a COVID-19 positive resident. This was evident for 1 of 5 resident units observed. This is evidenced by: The Centers for Disease Control document titled Sequence for Putting on Personal Protective equipment (PPE) stated the correct sequence for putting on personal protective equipment was gown, mask or respirator, goggles, or face shield, then gloves. The document stated the correct sequence for removing personal protective equipment was gloves, goggles or face shield, gown, and then mask or respirator. (https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/media/pdfs/Toolkits-PPE-Sequence-P.pdf) During an observation on 8/30/2024 at 11:08 AM in…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-02 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (Case #NY00260768), the facility did not ensure that each resident was treated with respect and dignity for 1 (Resident #4) of 4 residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not ensure Resident #4 was treated with respect and dignity on 7/17/2020, when the resident had wandered onto the Blue unit and was escorted inappropriately by the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 back to the Gold unit. LPN #3 forcefully grabbed the resident from behind and dragged them towards the Gold unit. This is evidenced by: Refer to F684 Resident #4: Resident #4 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of dementia with behavioral disturbance, recurrent major depressive disorder, and unsteadiness on feet. The MDS dated [DATE], documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Resident Care Policy #250: Resident Dignity issued 2/2020, documented each resident would be cared for in a manner that promoted and enhanced…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (Case #s NY00310437 and NY00260768), the facility did not ensure each resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive care plan (CCP) for 2 (Resident #s 2 and 4) of 4 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #2 was assessed upon admission with having 3 surgical wounds and a total of 8 staples, following repair of a left hip fracture (a break that occurs in the upper part of the thigh bone). The CCP did not document the location, number of surgical wounds, and the number of staples in the wounds. The facility did not ensure all staples were removed on 12/23/2022, as ordered by the Orthopedic provider. On 1/9/2023, the resident was discharged to another facility. The receiving facility assessed the resident with having 4 staples in their left hip. For Resident #4, the resident fell on the floor while being escorted by the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 on 7/17/2020 at 3:16 PM.…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2021-10-18 · tag F0813 — pattern
    Have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the policy regarding foods brought to residents is in accordance with adopted regulations. Specifically, the policy does not include a procedure to ensure all residents have the necessary assistance in accessing and consuming food brought to them by visitors. This is evidenced is as follows. Record review of the facility policy for food brought in by visitors was reviewed on 10/12/2021. This policy did not include a procedure to assist residents that are unable on their own to access and consume food brought to them by visitors. The Director of Nursing stated in an interview on 10/13/2021 at 1:05 PM, that the policy for food brought to residents does not include guidelines on how staff dependent residents will access and consume food brought to them. The Administrator stated in an interview on 10/13/2021 at 3:05 PM, that the facility will update the policy for food brought to residents to include a provision for residents that are dependant on staff to access the food brought in…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2021-10-18 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — pattern
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on observation and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Specifically, the trash compactor was not clean and the area around the compactor was not maintained. This is evidenced as follows. The trash compactor was inspected on 10/12/2021 at 9:30 AM, revealing that the trash compactor, the area under the trash compactor, the walls in the trash compactor access room, and the trash compactor access portal were heavily soiled with a black build-up. The Director of Building Services stated in an interview on 10/01/2020 at 2:45 PM, that the facility will develop a regular cleaning schedule for the trash compactor with the Director of Dining Services. The Administrator stated in an interview on 10/13/2021 at 2:55 PM, that the facility will clean the trash compacter, the area under the trash compactor, the access portal, and walls in the access room. 10 NYCRR 415.14(h)

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-10-18 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interview during a recertification survey on 10/12/2021, the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 2 (Resident #'s 45 and 55) of 33 residents reviewed. Specifically: For Resident #45, the facility did not ensure that an assessment was made following the loss of the resident's lower denture, regarding whether the resident was able to eat and maintain adequate nutrition, whether the resident needed a dietary alteration in the consistency of their diet to accommodate the loss of the denture and did not identify or address the decrease in the percentages of meals eaten and the progressive weight loss (31.2 pounds) from the time period the resident's lower denture was missing on 8/6/2021 through 9/15/2021; Also, the facility did not ensure the residents weights were taken and monitored after 9/14/2021 and after additional supplements were ordered on 9/28/2021 and 10/4/2021; for Resident #55, the facility did not ensure…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2021-10-18 · tag F0790 — failed to provide dental care — isolated
    Provide routine and 24-hour emergency dental care for each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interview the facility did not promptly, within 3 days, refer residents with lost or damaged dentures for dental services. Specifically, for one (Resident #45) of one resident reviewed for dental services, the facility did not ensure a referral to a dentist was made within 3 days when facilty staff noted Resident #45's lower denture was missing. This is evidenced by: Resident #45: Resident #45 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of cellulitis of the left lower extremity, hypertension, and lymphedema. The Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool) dated 8/5/2021, documented the resident's cognition was intact, was able to make self understood and able to understand others. The facility policy & procedure (P&P) titled Dental Services dated 1/2021, documented that it is the policy of the facility (partially named) to ensure that residents receive proper dental care in accordance with Department of Health regulations. The facility (partially named) will refer residents with lost or damaged dentures for dental services. The Social Work…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2019-05-24 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interview, during a recertification survey the facility did not ensure that comprehensive person-centered care plans were developed and implemented for each resident consistent with the resident rights set forth that include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for four (4) (Residents #'s 29, 92, 145 and #173) of thirty-five (35) residents reviewed. Specifically; for Resident #29 the facility did not ensure that a resident specific Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for the care and treatment of psoriasis and alteration in skin integrity of the scalp was implemented, for Resident #92, the facility did not ensure a CCP for positioning was implemented, for Resident #145, the facility did not ensure a CCP for the treatment of edema was implemented; and for Resident #173, the facility did not ensure a resident specific CCP for communication deficit was…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-05-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not maintain an infection control program to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection for three (3) (Resident #'s 12, 174 and #299) of 7 residents reviewed. Specifically; for Resident #174, the facility did not ensure standard precautions were maintained during a dressing change to the resident's non-pressure ulcer, for Resident #12, the facility did not ensure standard precautions were maintained during a dressing change to the 3 pressure ulcers on the resident's upper and lower left hip, and for Resident #299, the facility did not ensure the resident's oxygen tubing was kept off the floor. This is evidenced by: Resident #12: This resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of vascular dementia, dysphagia, and muscle wasting atrophy. The MDS dated [DATE], documented the resident was usually understood and could usually understand with severe cognitive impairment.…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
BRODSKY, LILITHIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/19/2023
GROSSMAN, JEFFREYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/18/2007
HUZ, JONATHANIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/17/2024
JACOBS, EDWARDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/15/2015
KABACK, LEEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/20/2022
KADISH, DAVIDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/21/2021
LEVY, STEPHENIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/17/2019
MAGIDSON, BEVERLYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/21/2021
MOZER, PAULIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/20/2022
POLLACK, BARRYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/20/2022
REICH, HERBERTIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/16/2025
SALMON, DELIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/19/2023
SHRAGER, STEVENIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/16/2025
SOKOL, REBEKAHIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/17/2024
ZACKON, IRAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/21/2021
WEISBLATT, SAMUELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/07/2025
MULSON, ANNEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/02/2000
MARRELLO, LISAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/09/2019
MIRZA, ALIIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/02/2018
REGAN, MICHAELIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/30/1987
SMITH, SAMANTHAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2022
STRYKER, MARCYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/12/2021
YORKER, RUTHIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/16/2024
BONADIO & CO LLPOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
SELECT REHABILITATION, LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 02/12/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 49 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$25.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+3.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 53%Medicare 10%Other / private 37%

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$340per resident / day
operating cost
$10,345per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$353per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in NY

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in New York
$15,528/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$16,729/mo
Nursing home (private)
$7,110/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335465. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-09-09, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next