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

University Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing

2505 Grand Avenue, Bronx, NY 10468 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 46 certified beds · (718) 295-1400 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (718) 295-1400 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0609) — cited Nov 2022
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • 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

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

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

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2471 Morris Avenue, Suite 1A
Pharmacy
2465 University Ave · (718) 220-4253 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2467 Jerome Ave · (718) 220-0700 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Jerome Avenue · (718) 430-1800 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 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 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased4.5%14.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.6%5.8%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.7%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms99.2%19.5%6.5%worse 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 injury0.0%3.1%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.8%12.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication2.9%13.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.6%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.2%6.5%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control0.6%19.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table21.6%13.7%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine72.2%78.8%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission30.4%20.6%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit30.0%9.6%12.0%worse

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

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.

9.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
81.8%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.40U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.22hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.16hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 81.8% 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 44 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.9%CMS range 6.1–15.310.7%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 discharge81.8%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 discharge90.9%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 discharge84.1%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 identified100.0%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 setting100.0%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 discharge95.5%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 stay1.4%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 worsened0.0%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 hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.241.02Oct 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

0.63
RN hours/ resident / day
0.65
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.31
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.60
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.56
RN hoursweekends
25.6%
Total nursing turnover
25.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 46 beds and averages 44.4 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.60 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.63 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.31 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.65 on weekdays — 5% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.56 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% 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 (2026-03-25)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-05-07)

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.

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.

  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-25 · 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, the facility did not ensure that assessments accurately reflected the residents' status. This was evident for one (1) of one (1) resident (Resident #3) reviewed for Respiratory Care out of forty-six (46) sampled residents. Specifically, The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment did not document Resident #3 was in use of continuous oxygen. The findings are: Resident #3 had diagnoses upon admission that included Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and bipolar disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented that the resident's cognitive status was severely impaired. The Minimum Data Set assessment did not document that the resident was use of continuous oxygen at the time of assessment. The Physician's order, dated 11/12/2025 and renewed 03/01/2026, documented the following: Oxygen via nasal cannula at two (2) liters per minute. Monitor oxygen every shift. Nursing Quarterly Care Plan Note, dated 01/28/2026,…

    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 · D2026-03-25 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    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, the facility did not ensure that residents received necessary respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive care plan. This was evident for one (1) of one (1) resident (Resident #3) reviewed for Respiratory Care out of forty-six (46) sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #3 was observed receiving oxygen via nasal cannula at a rate of four (4) liters per minute when the Physician's Order was written for oxygen to be received at a rate of two (2) liters per minute. The findings are: The facility's policy titled, Oxygen Therapy Administration, last reviewed 09/17/2025, documented to initiate flow of oxygen following manufacturer instructions for use, based on the type of device, and at the prescribed flow rate. The facility's Oxygen Therapy Administration policy did not include how oxygen therapy is to be monitored. Resident #3 had diagnoses upon admission that included Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Deep venous thrombosis…

    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 · D2026-03-25 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    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 did not ensure that the resident medical records were accurately documented in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #50) reviewed for Closed Records out of forty-six (46) total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #50 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE], but the resident's medical record revealed that the resident was seen on 03/12/2026 and 03/19/2026 by behavioral health staff despite not having returned to the facility. The findings are: Resident #50 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included non-Alzheimer's dementia, depression, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #50 had impaired cognition. The Minimum Data Set assessment also documented that the resident requires partial/moderate assistance for upper body dressing, personal hygiene and was dependent on lower body…

    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 · E2024-05-07 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 5/1/2024 to 5/7/2024, the facility did not ensure that resident menus were followed, and food preferences were honored. This was evident for 4 (Residents #38, # 95, and # 4) of 12 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Residents #38, #95, and #4 did not receive food items listed on their lunch and dinner meal ticket, and 2) Resident #38 did not receive preferred food items as requested. The findings are: The facility policy titled Tray Assembly Identification and Service Policy that was last reviewed in January 2024 documented tickets are used to identify correct items for resident diet and are placed at resident place setting or on tray. Food service staff will check trays for correct diets and consistencies before the food carts are transported to their designated areas. The licensed nurse will confirm individual name and diet on the tray card/ticket to verify that the meal is served to the correct person,…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-05-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure 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 observation, record review, and interview, during the Recertification Survey from 5/1/2024 to 5/7/2024, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and distributed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was evident during the kitchen observation. Specifically, 1.) multiple food items were observed in the refrigerators without proper labeling, 2.) opened food items were not dated, 3.) expired food items were observed, and 4.) food was not stored away from rust or soiled surfaces. The findings are: A facility policy and procedure titled Food Storage which was last revised on 4/1/2024 stated that food will be stored in an area that is clean, dry and free from contaminants. All stock must be rotated with each new order received. Rotating stock is essential to assure the freshness and highest quality of all foods. Food should be dated as it is placed on the shelves if required by state regulation. As for refrigerated food storage and frozen foods, all foods should be covered, labeled and dated. All foods will be checked to assure…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-07 · tag F0577 — isolated
    Allow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 05/01/2024 to 05/07/2024, the facility did not ensure that the most recent survey result of the facility was posted in a place readily accessible to residents, family members, and legal representatives of the residents. This was evident for 1(Resident #95) of 6 residents attending the Resident Council meeting. Specifically, survey results were posted in the facility basement that was not in plain view and was not readily accessible for review. In addition, a member of the Resident Council was interviewed and stated they do not know where the survey results were posted. The findings are: The facility policy titled Survey Results which was last revised on 12/2023 documented that a copy of at least 3 years recent standard survey, including any subsequent extended surveys, follow-up revisit reports, along with state approved plans of correction of noted deficiencies, is maintained in a 3-ring binder located in an area frequented by most residents, such as the main lobby or resident…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-07 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolated
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on the observation and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 5/1/2024 to 5/7/2024, the facility did not ensure garbage and refuse were properly disposed of. This was evident during the kitchen facility task. Specifically, garbage was not properly contained outside the facility to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests. The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure titled Garbage and Rubbish with a last review date of 02/2024 documented all garbage and rubbish containing food wastes shall be kept in containers. All garbage and rubbish containers shall be provided with tight fitting lids or covers and must be kept covered when stored or not in continuous use. On 5/1/2024 at 10:45 AM, an observation of the garbage dumpster area was made. There were 5 large green trash containers that were uncovered and 1 dumpster noted with exposed white trash bags. There were flies in the entrance way leading to the garbage area and above the open dumpster. On 05/01/24 at 10:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director. They stated they 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-11-22 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey (NY00293269), the facility did not ensure a resident's injury of unknown origin was reported to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) no later than 2 hours from the time of the allegation. This was evident for 1 (Resident #89) of 1 resident(s) reviewed for Abuse out of 29 total sampled residents. Specifically, The findings are: The facility policy titled Abuse dated 2/2022 documented notify the appropriate stat agency immediately (no later than 2 hours after allegation. Resident #89 had diagnoses of left distal radius fracture and dementia. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 dated 3/18/22 documented Resident #89 had moderately impaired cognition and required limited assistance with Activities of Daily Living. The Accident/Incident Report dated 3/23/22 documented Resident #89 was found with right hip pain on while lying in bed on 3/23/22 at 1:30 AM. X-rays were ordered, and Resident #89 was found with acute right femoral neck fracture. There were no signs of trauma and no…

    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 · D2022-11-22 · 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 record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey (case # NY00303443) from 11/16/2022 to 11/22/2022, the facility did not ensure a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment and based on changing goals. This was evident in 1 (Resident #36) of 29 total sampled residents. Specifically, the CCP related to Resident #36's discharge planning was not reviewed and revised after each quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment and upon a change in the resident's discharge planning goals. The findings are: The facility policy related to Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans last revised 02/2022 documented a CCPs are revised as information about the resident condition changes. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviews, revise, and updates the care plan at least a quarter with each quarterly MDS. Resident #36 had diagnoses of major depressive disorder and cerebral infarction. The MDS assessment dated [DATE]…

    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 · D2022-11-22 · tag F0660 — isolated
    Plan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
    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 Abbreviated survey (NY00303443) from 11/16/2022 to 11/22/2022, the facility did not ensure the development and implementation of an effective discharge process that involved the resident representative and regular re-evaluation of residents to identify changes that require modification of the discharge plan. This was evident in 1 (Resident #36) of 2 resident reviewed for Discharge out of 29 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #36's discharge plan did not reflect a change in the discharge destination from the community to another skilled nursing facility. In addition, the record did not reflect information about referrals made, status of the referral, or follow-up with the designated representative for the status of the discharge plan. The findings include: The facility policy titled Discharge - Transfer/discharge date d 02/2022 documented for discharge to the community or lateral transfer to alternate skilled 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-11-22 · tag F0661 — isolated
    Ensure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
    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 conducted during the recertification survey from 11/16/22 to 11/22/22, the facility did not ensure reconciliation of all pre-discharge medications with the resident's post discharge medications. This was evident for 1 (Resident #189) of 2 residents reviewed for discharge out of 29 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility did not ensure Resident #189 was discharged from the facility with the remaining supply of or prescriptions for the medication listed on their discharge instructions. The findings are: The facility policy titled Discharge - Transfer/discharge date d 2/2022 documented the social worker (SW), the Interdisciplinary Care Plan (IDCP) team, and Medical Doctor (MD) will coordinate all necessary medical physical mental and psychosocial services to ensure resident has a safe transition. Resident #189 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of right knee replacement and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #189…

    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 · D2022-11-22 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
    Ensure 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 11/16/22 to 11/22/22, the facility did not ensure the attending physician documented in the resident's medical record that an identified irregularity in the Medication Regimen Review (MRR) has been reviewed and what, if any, action has been taken to address it in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (Resident #19) of 5 residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications out of 29 total sampled residents. Specifically, the Medical Doctor (MD) did not respond timely to a pharmacy MRR concern regarding Resident #19 being prescribed Basalgar Insulin (BI) when there was documentation in the medical record that Resident #19 was allergic to BI. The findings are: The facility policy titled Pharmacy Consultant (PC) Medication Review dated 2/2022 documented the unit manager/designee will make sure all recommendations are acted upon and documented in the resident chart. Resident #19 was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (DM) and bipolar…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
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 CENTERS HEALTH CARE — 36 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 4 of 52.2+1.8 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.1+1.9 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 52.1+1.9 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.8+0.2 vs chain
The other 35 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.2★, per CMS)
1 of 5Buffalo Center For Rehabilitation And NursingBuffalo, NY 1 of 5Carthage Center For Rehabilitation And NursingCarthage, NY 1 of 5Delmar Center For Rehabilitation And NursingDelmar, NY 1 of 5Ellicott Center For Rehabilitation And NursingBuffalo, NY 1 of 5Granville Center For Rehabilitation And NursingGranville, NY 1 of 5Hammonton Center for Rehabilitation and HealthcareHammonton, NJ 1 of 5Hope Center for HIV and Nursing CareBronx, NY 1 of 5Oneida Center For Rehabilitation And NursingUtica, NY 1 of 5Onondaga Center for Rehabilitation and NursingMinoa, NY 1 of 5Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and HealthcareCanandaigua, NY 1 of 5Rochester Center for Rehabilitation and NursingRochester, NY 2 of 5Boro Park Center for Rehabilitation and HealthcareBrooklyn, NY 2 of 5Brooklyn Center for Rehabilitation and ResidentialBrooklyn, NY 2 of 5Deptford Center for Rehabilitation and HealthcareDeptford, NJ 2 of 5Fulton Center For Rehabilitation And HealthcareGloversville, NY 2 of 5Holliswood Center for Rehabilitation and HealthcarHollis, NY 2 of 5Martine Center For Rehabilitation And NursingWhite Plains, NY 2 of 5New Paltz Center For Rehabilitation And NursingNew Paltz, NY 2 of 5Richmond Center for Rehabilitation and Specialty HStaten Island, NY 2 of 5Schenectady Center For Rehabilitation And NursingSchenectady, NY 2 of 5Triboro Center for Rehabilitation and NursingBronx, NY 2 of 5Troy Center For Rehabilitation And NursingTroy, NY 2 of 5Warren Center For Rehabilitation And NursingQueensbury, NY 3 of 5Beth Abraham Center for Rehabilitation and NursingBronx, NY 3 of 5Bronx Center For Rehabilitation & Health CareBronx, NY 3 of 5Bushwick Center for Rehabilitation and Health CareBrooklyn, NY 3 of 5Cooperstown Center For Rehabilitation And NursingCooperstown, NY 3 of 5Essex Center For Rehabilitation And HealthcareElizabethtown, NY 3 of 5Glens Falls Center For Rehabilitation And NursingGlens Falls, NY 3 of 5Steuben Center for Rehabilitation and HealthcareBath, NY 3 of 5Washington Center For Rehab And HealthcareArgyle, NY 4 of 5Corning Center for Rehabilitation and HealthcareCorning, NY 4 of 5Far Rockaway Center for Rehabilitation and NursingFar Rockaway, NY 4 of 5Williamsbridge Center For Rehabilitation And NrsgBronx, NY 5 of 5Slate Valley Center For Rehabilitation And NursingGranville, NY

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
AREMAN, AVRAHAMIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST9%since 10/06/2022
FARKAS, ELISABETHIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST9%since 10/06/2022
ROZENBERG, BETHIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST5%since 01/01/2009
ROZENBERG, KENNETHIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST77%since 10/06/2022
SCHORR, DAVIDIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 09/01/2019

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.

$7.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+3.2%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$860K
Related-party expense12% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 49%Medicare 20%Other / private 31%

This home reported $860K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% 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.

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

$442per resident / day
operating cost
$13,426per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$456per 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 335061. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-25, 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