Concourse Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc
1072 Grand Concourse, Bronx, NY 10456 · For profit - Corporation · 240 certified beds · (718) 681-4000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (27% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $10,592 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-12)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 held steady at 2 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 24.3% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.2% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.3% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.1% | 1.3% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 42.8% | 19.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.4% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.2% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.5% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.1% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.8% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.2% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 64.6% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.2% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.6% | 9.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.63 | 1.70 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.82 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
33.2% 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 122 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 54.9% 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 162 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 50% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 33.2%CMS range 23.0–40.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.7%CMS range 6.8–13.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | 54.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 50.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 59.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 21.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 98.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 stay | 1.1% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.9%CMS range 4.1–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.27 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 240 beds and averages 238.6 residents a day — about 99% occupied, or roughly 1 bed 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 3.21 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.07 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 2.69 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.42 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 27% is below the national median of 45%.
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
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-04-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 interviews conducted during a Recertification and Abbreviated survey (NY00331425) from 4/6/2024 to 4/12/2024, the resident received inadequate supervision to prevent an accident. This was evident for one (Resident #80) of three residents reviewed for accidents out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, the plan of care did not clearly indicate Resident #80 required 2-person assistance with activities of daily living. Subsequently, Resident #80 fell and sustained a left distal femoral neck fracture (thigh bone broken at the knee) when Certified Nursing Assistant #1 rolled the resident on their side during care without a 2nd staff member's assistance. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #80 that was not immediate jeopardy. Finding is: The facility policy and procedure titled Fall Prevention and Management Program dated 8/2023 documented the staff will follow the resident fall prevention plan of care to ensure resident safety. Resident #80 had diagnoses of…
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.
- Potential for harm · F2024-04-12 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
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 from 4/6/2024 to 4/12/2024, the facility did not ensure the results of the most recent facility survey were posted in a place readily accessible to residents, and family members and legal representatives of residents. This was evident for 12 of 12 residents (Resident #s 5, 11, 41, 64, 77, 129, 146, 188, 203, 209, 215, and 295) during the Resident Council Meeting. Specifically, there were no observations of posted survey results in the facility. The findings are: During the Resident Council Meeting on 4/8/2024 at 10:30 AM, Resident #s 5, 11, 41, 64, 77, 129, 146, 188, 203, 209, 215, and 295 stated they were not aware of the location of the facility's posted survey results. On 4/8/2024 at 11:50 AM, the 6th Floor was observed with a posting documenting the New York State Department of Health survey results were located on the 1st Floor bulletin board outside the Admissions Office. There were no other observations of a posting providing the location of the facility's survey results. On…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 interviews conducted during a Recertification and Abbreviated (NY00331425) survey from 4/7/2024 to 4/12/2024, the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving abuse were reported to the New York State Department of Health immediately or within 2 hours after the allegation was made. This was evident for 2 (Resident #80 and #119) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #80 had a fall resulting in a fracture that was not reported to the New York State Department of Health, and 2) Resident #119 had an unwitnessed fall resulting in a fracture that was not reported to the New York State Department of Health. The findings are: The facility policy titled Prevention of Mistreatment, Neglect and Abuse and Misappropriation of Resident Property dated 10/4/2022 documented the Director of Nursing will report any accident or incident where there is reasonable cause to believe that resident abuse occurred to the New York State Department of Health. The…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 conducted during a Recertification survey from 4/7/2024 to 4/12/2024, the facility did not ensure that the baseline care plan was developed within 48 hours of a resident's admission and the resident and/or their representative were provided with a written summary of the baseline care plan. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 10) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, the baseline care plan was not completed within 48 hours of Resident #10's admission to the facility and a copy was not provided to Resident #10. The findings are: The facility policy titled Baseline Care Plan dated 9/2023 documented a baseline care plan will be developed within 48 hours of resident's admission and the resident and their representative will be provided with a summary of the baseline care plan prior to the completion of the comprehensive care plan. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of unspecified convulsions and acute osteomyelitis of the left ankle and foot.…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 4/7/2024 to 4/12/2024, the facility did not ensure that a person-centered comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented to address the resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. This was evident for 1 (Resident #24) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, a comprehensive care plan was not developed and implemented for Resident #24's use of antipsychotic medication. The findings are: The facility policy titled Comprehensive & Interim Care Plan dated 8/10/2023 documented that a care plan is developed for each resident's problem, with a measurable goal and interventions necessary to achieve the goal. Resident #24 had diagnoses of delusional disorder and bipolar disorder. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident # 24 was moderately impaired in cognition and received antipsychotic medication. The Physician Order dated 3/10/2024 documented Resident #24 received Quetiapine…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 4/7/2024 to 4/12/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers. This was evident for 1 (Resident #27) of 6 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #27 was observed without on multiple occasions resident #27 was observed without heel float boots, a pressure-relieving device, in accordance with the Physician's Order. The findings are: The facility policy titled Pressure Ulcers dated 10/2023 documented assistive devices were used to treat and prevent pressure ulcers. Bony prominences were protected as needed. Resident #27 had diagnoses of dementia and respiratory failure. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #27 was severely cognitively impaired and was dependent on staff to perform activities of daily living. On 4/08/2024 at 11:00 AM and…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
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 interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 4/7/2024 to 4/12/2024, the facility did not ensure dental services were provided from an outside resource to meet the needs of the resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #203) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility did not obtain outside dental services for Resident #203 when a tooth extraction was recommended. The findings are: The facility policy titled Dental Consultation dated 8/2023 documented residents were provided access to dental consultations as part of their comprehensive primary care. Resident #203 had diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and heart failure. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #203 was moderately cognitively impaired. On 4/10/2024 at 12:42 PM, Resident #203 was interviewed and stated a Dentist saw them in the facility a few months ago and recommended a tooth extraction. The facility did not assist with scheduling an appointment to have…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0847 — isolatedInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 4/7/2024 through 4/12/2024, the facility did not ensure the Binding Arbitration Agreement granted the resident or representative the right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing it. This was evident for 1 (Resident #156) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, the Binding Arbitration Agreement signed by Resident #156 did not grant the resident 30 calendar days to rescind the agreement. The findings are: The facility's sample admission Agreement contained a Binding Arbitration Agreement that documented the agreement can be rescinded within 10 days of the resident's admission to the facility. Resident #156 signed a Binding Arbitration Agreement on 12/22/2021. There was no documented evidence Resident #156 was provided 30 calendar days to rescind the agreement. On 4/12/2024 at 12:51 PM, the Director of Social Service was interviewed and stated they were unaware that the resident or their representative should have the right to rescind the agreement within 30 days of signing…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-05 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 and interview conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a resident is free from physical restraint. Specifically, a resident was observed in the day room, sitting on a wheel chair with a lap tray attached to the resident's body, and the resident was unable to remove it. This was evident for 1 of the 1 resident reviewed for Physical Restraints out of a sample of 39 residents. (Resident # 302). The finding is: The facility policy on Physical Restraint dated 2016 documented the following: Residents being considered for restraints/Device will be evaluated by a team composed of a Licensed Nurse and a rehabilitation therapist and or a social worker. The policy also documented that, prior to instituting a device, a verbal or written order must be obtained from the resident or a designated representative, if at all possible. The policy further documented that the monitoring for continued need will be documented on the tracking sheet for each resident. In addition, the…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-05 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 observation and interview conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a care plan was developed for a resident. Specifically, there was no care plan developed for a resident using a laptray. This was evident for 1 resident out of a sample of 39 residents. (Resident # 302) The finding is: The facility policy for Assessment and Care Process/Development dated 11/2018 documented the following that it is the responsibility of the facility to provide care necessary for each resident to reach his/ her highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. The policy also documented that a care plan is developed for each resident in order to have a systematic blueprint of the resident's problems and interventions determined to be necessary to achieve the measurable specified and individualized. The policy further documented that the the Comprehensive Care Plan must reflect the residents specific problems, and also the basis guidelines for the Certified Nursing Assistant…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-05 · tag F0711 — isolatedEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
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 interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident's total plan of care was reviewed by the Physician following readmission. Specifically, The family member of Resident #58 complained to SA that the resident was not walking post fall and was not receiving Physical Therapy/Occupational Therapy. Record reviews revealed that prior to having a fall in the facility and being hospitalized the resident was receiving PT/OT. The Nurse Practitioner (NP#9) assessed the resident upon the resident's readmission, however, the NP did not refer the resident to PT/OT for evaluation. The NP documented that they would confer with the resident's Medical Doctor (MD). There was no documented evidence that the NP conferred with the MD or that the MD evaluated the resident post fall and hospitalization. The resident was never referred to PT or OT for revaluation. This was evident for one of five residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications and Dementia…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that infection control practices were maintained. Specifically, a resident who continuously used oxygen was observed on multiple occasions to have oxygen tubing on the floor. (Resident #120) The findings are: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented that Resident #120 had moderately impaired cognition and a diagnosis of Respiratory Failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. The resident was also documented as receiving suctioning, Tracheostomy care and oxygen therapy. The most recent Physician Orders reviewed on 7/23/19 documented that the resident is to have continuous oxygen 3 liters per minute via trach collar. On 07/31/19 at 10:28 AM, Resident #120 was observed in his room, out of bed, and in a wheelchair next to his bed. The oxygen tubing connecting the oxygen concentrator to the Tracheostomy collar was observed to be lying on the floor between the wheelchair and bed. On…
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.
- No harm found · C2019-08-05 · tag F0640 — widespreadEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
5). Res #43: The Quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 6/1/19 was submitted on 8/1/19. 6). Res #48: The Quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 6/5/19 was submitted on 8/1/19. 7). Res #3: The Quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 5/10/19 was submitted on 8/1/19. Based on record review and interviews during the re-certification survey, the facility did not ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 comprehensive and non-comprehensive assessments were electronically transmitted to the Quality Improvement Evaluation System (QIES) Assessment Submission and Processing (ASAP) system in a timely manner. Specifically, Quarterly MDS assessments were not submitted and transmitted within 14 calendar days from the MDS Completion Date. Specifically, 57 out of 57 residents reviewed for the Resident Assessment Facility Task had MDS Assessments submitted later than 14 days after completion. (Residents #14, 29, 44, 57, 130, 43, 48, 3, 51, 5, and 62). The findings included but are not limited to: The CMS RAI Version 3.0 Manual (Dated October 2018), Chapter 5 titled Submission and Correction of the MDS…
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.
“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.
- 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.
Fines & penalties
$10,592 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $10,592 — penalty dated 2024-04-12
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEIMAN, MARVIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/27/2004 |
| GRACON ASSOCIATES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/1976 |
| NEIMAN, SOLOMON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/15/2012 |
| LEBOVIC, DOV | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2004 |
| VEZZA, ELENA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
This home reported $2.3M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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
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
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.
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 335493. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-12, 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.