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

Hudson Pointe at Riverdale Center for Nursing and

3220 Henry Hudson Parkway, Bronx, NY 10463 · For profit - Partnership · 167 certified beds · (718) 549-9400 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0604) — cited Jul 20221 immediate-jeopardy citation
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0604), cited Jul 2022
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • about 24% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
  • 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.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
3333 Henry Hudson Pkwy · (718) 601-2100 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
565 W 235th St · (800) 746-7287 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
3540 Johnson Ave · (718) 548-4855 · Call to confirm hours
Park
232 W Nd St · (212) 639-9675 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
3250 Arlington Ave · (718) 548-4470

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 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 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.

Overall rating2★
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 increased7.3%14.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.5%5.8%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.2%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.2%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms12.1%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 injury3.2%3.1%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened8.5%12.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication7.2%13.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine93.5%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers7.2%6.5%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control18.9%19.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table12.8%13.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication4.4%1.2%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine33.3%78.8%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission21.3%20.6%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit16.2%9.6%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.071.701.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.021.361.80better

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.

42.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 85 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

42.4%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
79.8%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.33U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.15hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.15hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 79.8% 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 94 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 56% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 SNF42.4%CMS range 33.2–51.651.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.0%CMS range 6.7–12.810.7%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 discharge79.8%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 discharge76.6%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 discharge72.3%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 identified94.0%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 setting98.5%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 stay0.6%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 worsened1.2%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 hospitalization8.2%CMS range 4.5–12.67.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.401.02Oct 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

0.60
RN hours/ resident / day
0.46
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.89
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.94
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.33
RN hoursweekends
29.2%
Total nursing turnover
36.8%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 167 beds and averages 155.5 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.89 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 2.60 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.07 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.70 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% 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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-07-26)
6
at the previous standard inspection (2022-07-12)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · K2022-07-12 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — pattern
    Ensure 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, record review and interviews conducted during the extended recertification and abbreviated (NY00290309) survey from 6/27/2022 through 7/12/2022, the facility did not ensure that each resident remained free from physical restraints not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. This was evident for 14 of 14 residents reviewed for Physical Restraints (Resident #s 85, 95, 42, 190, 23, 69, 76, 121, 63, 136, 71, 12, 40 and 31) out of a sample of 43 residents. Specifically, Resident #42 had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assist of one person for bed mobility and transfers. Resident #42 had orders for bilateral 1/2 side rails SR, and the SR were not identified as a restraint. Resident #42 sustained an injury to the right eyelid after hitting their head on a 1/2 SR. There was no medical justification, SR safety assessment prior to SR use, restraint care plan, or evidence of alternatives attempted before using the bilateral 1/2 SR. Resident #s 85, 95, 190, 23, 69, 76,…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-01 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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

    Based on record review and staff interview, conducted during the abbreviated survey (#2651294) the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, including injuries of unknown source were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the New York State Department of Health. This was evident for one (1) of four (4) residents (Resident #1) sampled. Specifically, on 10/12/2025 Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall out of bed and sustained discoloration of the left eye which the facility did not report. The findings are: The facility policy titled 'Abuse' last reviewed on 03/11/2024 documented it is the policy of facility that each resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical and mental abuse, corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion and misappropriation of funds. The policy also…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-26 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 07/21/2024 to 07/26/2024, the facility did not ensure that it promoted and facilitated resident self-determination by supporting resident choice. Specifically, residents' bathing preferences were not honored. This was evident for 2 of the 4 residents reviewed for Choices out of 38 sampled residents. (Resident #88, and #46). The findings are: The facility policy and procedures titled ADL-Shower with the last revised date February 2024 documented that it is the policy of the facility to shower residents, to cleanse, and refresh resident, observe the skin and to provide increased circulation. Place resident in a shower chair and drape with a bath blanket or other form of cover. 1. Resident #88 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Peripheral Vascular Diseases and Depression. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #88 as cognitively intact and dependent…

    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 before2024-07-26 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 reviews and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments accurately reflected the residents' status. Specifically, the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments did not reflect that wander/elopement alarms were used for 2 residents. This was evident for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for Elopement Risk out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident # 103 and #135). The findings are: 1.) Resident #103 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which include Dementia, Depression, and Psychotic Disorder. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had impaired cognition and was dependent in performing activities of daily living. Also documented in the Section P0200-Alarm that Wander/Elopement Alarm was not used. On 07/22/24 at 12:15 PM Resident #103 was observed with a wander guard device on the right wrist. Elopement Risk assessment dated [DATE] documented…

    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 · D2024-07-26 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    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 interviews, observations and record review conducted during a recertification survey (EUC311), the facility did not ensure that a resident's care plan for falls was reviewed and revised. Specifically, staff did not complete a timely review and/or revision for the care plan for a resident who had an identified history of falls with injury. This was evident in 1 of 31 residents reviewed for care plans (Resident #52). The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure entitled Care Plan, Comprehensive, last updated 02/2024, states that the interdisciplinary team reviews and updates the care plans at least quarterly in conjunction with the required Minimum Data Set assessment. Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Depression, Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 06/03/2024 documented that the resident's cognition was severely impaired, that they wandered daily and used a Wanderguard to…

    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 · F2022-07-12 · tag F0700 — widespread
    Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
    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 upon observation, interview, and record review during the extended recertification and abbreviated (NY00290309) survey from 6/27/2022 to 7/12/2022, the facility did not ensure appropriate alternatives to bed/SR (SR) were implemented and that residents were adequately assessed prior to bed/side rails (SR) use. This was evident in 14 (Resident #s 85, 95, 42, 190, 23, 69, 76, 121, 63, 136, 71, 12, 40 and 31) of 14 reviewed for SR out of a sample of 43 residents. Specifically, Resident #s 85, 95, 42, 190, 23, 69, 76, 121, 63, 136, 71, 12, 40 and 31 were observed with SR in use without assessments that included risk of entrapment and ensure the bed's dimensions are appropriate for resident's size and weight prior to SR installation. The findings include, but are not limited to: The policy titled Proper Use of SR dated 6/2016 and last reviewed 12/2021 documented: the purposes of these guidelines are to ensure the safe use of SR as resident mobility aids and to prohibit the use of SR as restraints unless…

    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 · D2022-07-12 · tag F0582 — isolated
    Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
    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 interviews and record review during the recertification survey from 06/27/2022 and 7/12/2022, the facility did not ensure a resident received notification prior to changes in coverage for services covered by Medicare. This was evident for 1 (Resident #90) of 4 resident reviewed for Beneficiary Protection Notice. Specifically, the facility did not provide Resident #90 with a Notice to Medicare Provider Non-coverage (NOMNOC) explaining their right to an expedited review prior to the termination of their Medicare coverage. The findings are: The facility policy titled Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Beneficiary Notices Process last reviewed 1/22 documented residents are provided appropriate Medicare SNF notices informing them of their responsibilities for payments and rights to request appeal, Medicare billing or redetermination of coverage from the appropriate agency. Resident #90 had diagnoses of type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic heart disease. A Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated…

    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 · D2022-07-12 · tag F0640 — isolated
    Encode 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 6/27/2022 to 7/12/2022, the facility did not ensure Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessments were transmitted timely. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 2 residents reviewed for Resident Assessment. Specifically, the facility did not transmit a Discharge MDS for Resident #1 within 14 days. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Resident Assessment last reviewed 2/2022 documented the MDS Coordinator (MDSC) is responsible for ensuring the interdisciplinary team conducts timely and appropriate resident assessments and reviews. Discharge assessments are conducted when a resident is discharged from the facility. Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and hypertension. Resident #1 was discharged from the facility on 1/26/2022. A Discharge MDS initiated and completed on 1/26/2022 documented Resident #1's return to the facility was not anticipated. As of 6/29/2022, the Discharge MDS did not have a…

    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 · Dcited before2022-07-12 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 staff interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the Facility did not ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflects the resident's status for 2 (Resident # 90 and Resident # 108) of 2 residents reviewed for Resident Assessment out of an investigative sample of 42 residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #108's most recent MDS assessment inaccurately documented Resident #108 received dialysis; 2) Resident #90's most recent MDS assessment inaccurately documented Resident #90 had adequate hearing. The findings are: The findings are: The facility's policy titled Resident Assessment last revised 02/2022 documented the MDS Coordinator (MDSC) is responsible for ensuring appropriate resident assessment and reviews. 1) Resident # 108 was had diagnoses of hypertension, cerebral vascular accident, and seizures. The MDS dated [DATE] did not document Resident #108 documented the Resident #108 was receiving dialysis treatment. There was no documented…

    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 · Dcited before2022-07-12 · 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

    Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure infection control practices and procedures were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 4 (Residents #55, 120, 37 & 77) of 12 residents on 1 (3rd floor) of 4 units observed during the Medication Administration Facility Task. Specifically, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #5) was observed using a glucometer machine for multiple residents without sanitizing the equipment in between the residents. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Administration of Medication, reviewed 03/02/22, documented in the section Obtaining a Fingerstick Glucose level, that staff should always ensure that blood glucose meters intended for reuse are cleaned with germicidal wipes and disinfected between resident uses. On 06/28/22 09:48 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5 was observed checking residents' blood glucose on the 3rd floor. LPN #5 removed the glucometer…

    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 · D2019-08-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    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, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was developed and implemented. Specifically, a resident with a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus did not have a CCP developed for this condition. This was evident for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications out of a sample size of 34 residents. (Resident #125) The findings are: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented that Resident #125 as cognitively intact, with a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus, and received insulin injections daily. The Physician's Orders renewed on 8/17/19 documented that Resident #125 received 7 units of Humalog KwikPen (U-100) Insulin subcutaneously 3 times daily before meals (hold if fingerstick blood sugar (FSBS) is less than 110) and 34 units of Lantus Solostar (U-100) Insulin subcutaneously once daily at 8 PM. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) for August 2019 documented that 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-20 · 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, interviews, and record reviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that infection control practices were maintained. Specifically, (1) infection control policies were not reviewed and revised annually; and, (2) a resident with a urinary catheter was observed with catheter tubing laying on the floor. (Resident #125) The findings are: 1. The facility Infection Control Policies and Procedures revised on 9/2016 documented that the Nursing department is responsible for reviewing all policies and procedures at least annually and revising them as necessary. The facility policy and procedure titled Influenza revised on 3/10/2017 did not document that employees will be required to wear a face mask during flu season if they declined to receive the flu vaccine. The facility policy and procedure titled Flu (Influenza) Vaccination: Residents documented a revision date of 10/8/2017. On 08/20/19 at 10:05 AM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing…

    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.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CITADEL CARE CENTERS — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 53.0-1.0 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.6-0.6 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 53.0≈ chain avg
Quality measures 3 of 53.8-0.8 vs chain
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
FRIEDMAN, LEOPOLDIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF50%since 06/01/2016
LANDA, SHEYAIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF25%since 06/01/2016
PHILIPSON, GABRIELLEIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF25%since 06/01/2016
ENVOLTORIO, STELLAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/07/2024
GRULLON, EDDYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/13/2020
LATI, ZEVIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/25/2025
MOORE, GEMMAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/23/2024
TERRANO, MONICAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2016
VILLAR, SHANDEEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/20/2023
WATSON, MARCUSIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/16/2023
FRIEDMAN, MALKYIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/24/2026
CITADEL CONSULTING GROUPOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2016

CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 12 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.

$23.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-10.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$6.0M
Related-party expense24% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 63%Medicare 12%Other / private 26%

This home reported $6.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

$452per resident / day
operating cost
$13,753per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$411per 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 335187. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-07-26, 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