Prestige Nursing Care & Rehab Center
3400 -26 Cannon Place, Bronx, NY 10463 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 400 certified beds · (718) 796-8100 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- 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
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $8,788 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-05)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 fell from 4 to 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 | 8.3% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.2% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.3% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.1% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 3.7% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.7% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.8% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.2% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.9% | 20.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.6% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.26 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.01 | 1.36 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
39.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 74 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 169 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 20% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 39.1%CMS range 27.5–50.1 | 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 | 9.4%CMS range 6.1–12.4 | 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 | 65.1% | 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 | 50.9% | 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 | 36.7% | 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 | 99.2% | 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 | 90.0% | 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 | 89.3% | 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 | 0.4% | 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 | 2.1% | 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 | 7.6%CMS range 4.5–11.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.80 | 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 400 beds and averages 356.6 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 43 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.98 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.28 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.08 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.66 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.11 to 0.67 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% is about the same as 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.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-02-05 · 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 an Abbreviated Survey (NY00335650), the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to a resident to prevent accidents. This was evident for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) sampled. Specifically, on [DATE] at 11:00 AM, Resident #1 fell off their bed onto the floor while Certified Nursing Assistant #1 was providing bed mobility care by themself. Registered Nurse Supervisor #1 assessed Resident #1 to have swelling of their right elbow, and complaints of pain to their head, right arm, elbow, and back. Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] at 2:55 PM and was admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of right arm and pelvis fracture. The Resident Nursing Instructions dated [DATE] documented Resident #1 was dependent (two (2) or more helpers are required) for bed mobility. Certified Nursing Assistant #1 did not review Resident #1's Resident Nursing Instructions before providing care to Resident #1. This resulted in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-16 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents' right to a safe, homelike environment was maintained. This was evident in two (2) shower rooms observed during the Environmental Task. Specifically, two (2) clear overhead lighting fixture coverings in the Six (6) [NAME] unit shower room were observed to be cracked or had broken circular areas, and the faucet on a sink in the Four (4) East unit was loose and became partially detached from the sink's base when used. The findings include:The facility policy and procedure titled, Homelike Environment, reviewed 01/2026, documented it is the policy of the facility to create and sustain a home-like environment that supports each residents' physical, emotional, and psychosocial well-being. The facility will respect resident preferences, encourage individuality, and promote autonomy while maintaining a safe and sanitary environment. The facility will maintain a clean, comfortable, and safe environment. Efforts will be made to reduce institutional appearance and maintain appropriate lighting.…
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 · E2026-04-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was evident for three (3) of five (5) kitchen refrigerators that were observed during the initial kitchen tour. Specifically, walk-in refrigerator #1 was observed to contain unlabeled and undated cups of almond milk, walk-in refrigerator #2 was observed to contain outdated cooked food and undated defrosting food, and the kitchen pantry refrigerator contained four (4) ounce fruit and pudding cups that were undated and/or outdated.The findings include: The facility policy and procedure titled, Food Storage, with review date of 10/2025, documented that all use by dates will function as safety dates and all frozen food will be stored in a solid state. All perishable food will be dated by a staff member and stored immediately upon receival. Best by or best if used by dates are a suggestion for when the food item will be at its best quality. The facility standard is to treat this as the expiration date.The facility policy 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 · D2026-04-16 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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, the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity. This was evident for one (1) (Resident #4) of two (2) residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living out of a total sample of thirty-eight (38) residents. Specifically, Resident #4 was transferred via Hoyer Lift through the doorway, to a bariatric Geri chair. The findings include:The facility's policy titled, Lift and Transferring, last reviewed 03/2025, documented that preparation of the procedure includes providing enough space to move freely.The facility's policy titled, Resident's [NAME] of Rights, last revised 01/2026, documented that all staff members have a responsibility to enable a resident to have personal dignity, well-being and proper delivery of care.Resident #4 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that include Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus and Non-Alzheimer's Dementia. On 04/13/2026 at 11:13 AM Resident #4 was observed for a transfer via…
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 · D2026-04-16 · 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 observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a person-centered comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented to address the residents' medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. This was evident for one (1) resident (Resident #60) reviewed for Dental out of a total sample of 38 residents; specifically, a person-centered comprehensive care plan was not developed and implemented to address the resident's dental care needs. Additionally, a comprehensive care plan was not developed and implemented for Resident #73's use of plastic utensils in the resident's Activity of Daily Living or Behavior care plans.The findings include: The facility policy and procedure titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, dated 11/28/2017, last revised 01/2026, stated that a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident is developed within (7) days of completion of the resident assessment. The care plan is based on the resident's comprehensive…
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 · D2026-04-16 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to act upon the recommendations documented in the drug regimen review for one (1) (Resident # 347) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, the irregularity noted in the drug regimen review for Resident #347, dated 02/09/2026, was to consider a gradual dose reduction of Olanzapine five (5) milligrams; the physician did not document a rationale for not changing the medication order in the resident's medical record.The findings are:The facility policy and procedure titled, Drug Regimen Review, last revised January 2026, documented that the consultant pharmacist shall perform medication regimen reviews for each resident at least monthly. They shall provide written documentation of all recommendations and submit it to the facility for the attending prescriber or designee's review and response. The prescriber or designee shall act upon the Drug Regimen Review findings/recommendations in a timely manner of seven to fourteen (7-14) days or less. They…
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 · D2026-04-16 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
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 staff interviews, the facility did not ensure that the resident's drug regimen is free from unnecessary drugs. This was evident for one (1) resident (Resident #131) out of a total sample of thirty-eight (38) residents. Specifically, Resident #131 was ordered Morphine fifteen (15) milligram extended-release tablets to be given with frequency of as needed, which is not an adequate indication or duration for its use. The findings include: The facility's policy titled, Pain Assessment and Management, last reviewed 01/2026, documented that residents admitted on pain medication regimens will have their pain medications continued uninterrupted after evaluation by the medical provider. Staff will assess the effectiveness of medication in managing the pain by evaluating the dosage and administration intervals.Resident #131 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal insufficiency, and obstructive uropathy.The Quarterly…
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 · D2026-04-16 · 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 observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received dental services in a timely manner. This was evident for one (1) resident (Resident #60) reviewed for Dental out of a total sample of thirty-eight (38) residents. Specifically, Resident #60 was not provided with dental services to meet the needs of the resident since resident was admitted to the facility.The findings include:The facility policy titled, Consults: In-house and Off-site, with a last revised date of 01/2026 stated that consultation services are provided by the Medical Department as part of the comprehensive plan of care for all resident at the facility. The Physician will write an order for the consult. The nurse will pick up the order and bring the consult to the nursing office; The nursing office will review the in-house consults on a weekly basis and make the necessary phone calls to the in-house consultants to inform them of the pending consults that are due. The completed…
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 · Ecited before2024-03-08 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely 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 record review and interviews conducted during the recertification and complaint (NY00324696 and NY00318663) survey from 3/3/2024 to 3/8/2024, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse were immediately reported to the New York State Department of Health, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made. This was evident for 3 (Resident #265, #181, and #66) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #265's abrasion and bruise to their face and head of unknown origin were not reported to the New York State Department of Health, and 2) a resident-to-resident altercation between Resident #181 and #66 was not reported to the New York State Department of Health within 2 hours of occurrence. The findings are: The facility policy titled Abuse Prevention Program dated 1/2024 documented all reports of resident abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, mistreatment and/or injuries of unknown source shall be promptly reported to local, state, 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 · Dcited before2024-03-08 · 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 the Recertification survey from 3/3/2024 to 3/8/2024, the facility did not provide an environment that is free from hazards. This was evident for 1 (Resident #274) of 6 residents reviewed for accidents out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #274 was provided with a disproportionately smaller mattress atop a wider bedframe, a hazard increasing the resident's risk for falling from bed. The findings are: Resident #274 had diagnoses of coronary artery disease and dementia. The facility policy titled Bed Inspection and Maintenance revised 2/2024 documented the safety and comfort of the residents will be ensured by regularly inspecting and maintaining bedframes and mattresses upon admission, readmission, and during a periodic comprehensive audit including bed area assessment. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #274 had severe cognitive impairment. On 3/05/2024 at 11:23 AM, Resident #274 was observed…
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 · Ecited before2022-02-04 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely 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 record reviews and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey (NY00259038 and NY00252716), the facility did not ensure that an alleged violations involving Abuse and serious bodily injury were reported to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) within 2 hours. Specifically, (1) allegations of resident-to-resident abuse were not reported within 2 hours, and (2) incidents of resident-to-resident abuse and a fracture of unknown source were not reported. This was evident for 7 of 8 residents reviewed for Abuse (Resident #130, #131, # 191, #199, # 205, #536, and #386). The findings include but are not limited to: The facility policy titled Abuse Prevention Program with revised date 11/2017 documented that An alleged violation of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment (including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property) will be reported immediately, but no later than two (2) hours if the alleged violation involves abuse OR has resulted in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-02-04 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure 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 interview conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status. Specifically, a resident's wander guard was not captured on the Minimum Data Sets (MDS). This was evident for 1 of 13 residents reviewed for Accidents out of total sample of 35 residents (Resident # 184). The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Resident Assessment MDS 3.0 revised 11/2021, documented: All persons who have completed any portion of the MDS resident assessment forms must sign and document attesting to the accuracy of such information. and The results of the assessments are used to develop, review and revise the resident's comprehensive care plan. Resident #184 was admitted with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, Restlessness and agitation, and Major depressive disorder. On 02/02/22 at 3:16 PM, Resident #184 was observed wandering in the hallway and then standing in another resident's…
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
$8,788 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,788 — penalty dated 2025-02-05
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.
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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 3.8 | -2.8 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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FARKOWITZ, ESTHER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 25% | since 03/19/2013 |
| FRIEDMAN, LEOPOLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 50% | since 03/19/2013 |
| PHILIPSON, BENT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 5% | since 03/19/2013 |
| PHILIPSON, GABRIELLE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 20% | since 03/19/2013 |
| KUMAR, TERUN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| SCARPA, JOSEPH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| SCHIFF, ANSHEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
About 88% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. 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
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 335028. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-16, 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.