Hamilton Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
691 92nd Street, Brooklyn, NY 11228 · For profit - Partnership · 200 certified beds · (718) 567-1820 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
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 | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 11.6% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 12.3% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.9% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.9% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.9% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.9% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.2% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.5% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 10.8% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.3% | 19.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.7% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.9% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 16.4% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.2% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.41 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.52 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
54.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 376 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 80.5% 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 302 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 0.55 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 85% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 40% 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 | 54.9%CMS range 48.4–60.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 8.0–13.7 | 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 | 80.5% | 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 | 79.1% | 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 | 79.1% | 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 | 99.8% | 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 | 99.2% | 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 | 99.5% | 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 | 0.5% | 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 | 3.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.8%CMS range 5.5–10.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.84 | 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 200 beds and averages 195.0 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.88 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 2.34 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 3.46 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.05 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-02-25 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey conducted from 02/18/2025 to 02/25/2025, the facility did not ensure that residents' right to a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment was maintained. This was evident in 2 (5th and 6th Floor) of 4 resident units observed during Environmental Task. Specifically, resident bathrooms had missing tiles, mismatched and peeling paint, and grime build up. Additionally, the closet door in a resident's room was observed with rust-colored stain. The findings include but are not limited to: A facility document titled Maintenance Policy with a revised date of 01/2025 documented the maintenance department is responsible for managing the maintenance function in the safest manner possible and providing the best service to the residents. The maintenance priorities include cosmetic/curb appeal. During multiple observations from 02/18/2025 to 02/25/2025, the following were observed: 1.) The bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with…
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 · E2025-02-25 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 interview during the Recertification Survey conducted from 02/18/2025 to 02/25/2025 the facility failed to ensure that services provided or arranged by the facility, as outlined by the comprehensive care plan, met professional standards of quality. This was evident in 1 (Resident #102) of 5 residents reviewed for psychotropic medications out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, licensed nursing staff failed to administer medication as per the physician's order and according to professional nursing standards of clinical practice. Additionally, the nursing staff failed to notify the physician when significant medication was not administered and ensure that the resident was clinically monitored for adverse reactions. Cross Reference: F760 - Residents Are Free of Significant Medication Errors The findings are: According to the New York State Educational Law Article 139, Section 6902, the practice of the profession of nursing includes the executing of medical regimens prescribed by…
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 · E2025-02-25 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 interview during the Recertification Survey conducted from 02/18/2025 to 02/25/2025 the facility did not ensure residents are free of any significant medication errors. This was evident in 1 (Resident #102) of 5 residents reviewed for psychotropic medications out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #102 was not administered 7 doses of Venlafaxine (an anti-depressant) as ordered by a physician. The findings are: The facility Policy titled Administering Medications with a revised date of 01/2025 documented medications must be administered in safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. If a drug is withheld, refused, or given at a time other than the schedule time, the individual administering the medication shall initial and enter corresponding code into the Medication Administration Record space provided for the drug and dose. Resident #102 had diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, Anxiety, and Major Depressive Disorder. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-25 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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 interview during the Recertification Survey conducted from 02/18/2025 to 02/25/2025 the facility did not ensure that a resident's comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments. This was evident in 1 of 2 residents reviewed for care planning and hospice care out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #33's Comprehensive Care Plan related to hospice care was not reviewed and revised quarterly after each assessment. The findings are: The facility policy titled Minimum Data Set Guideline for Completion with a revised date of 01/2025 documented all members of the interdisciplinary team are responsible for reviewing, updating, and evaluating resident assessments and care plans. Resident #33 had diagnoses that included Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and Chronic Respiratory Failure. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #33 had…
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 · D2025-02-25 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview during the Recertification Survey conducted from 02/18/2025 to 02/25/2025, the facility did not ensure that residents were served food that accommodated their allergies and intolerances. This was evident in 1 (Resident #343) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #343, who had a documented allergy to Mushroom, received a lunch tray containing mushroom soup. The findings are: The facility document titled Allergy Policy with a revised date of 01/2025 documented all food allergies will be communicated to the Food Service Director for immediate identification on the resident food profile. Tickets should reflect the resident's known food allergies. Resident #343 had diagnoses of Heart Failure, Dementia, and Hypertension. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented #343 had moderately impaired cognition and required supervision or touch assistance for eating. During dining observation on 02/18/2025 at 12:31 PM, Resident #342 was in the unit…
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 · D2025-02-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 conducted from 02/18/2025 to 02/25/2025, the facility did not ensure food was prepared and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety to prevent foodborne illness. This was evident during dining observation on the 6th Floor. Specifically, Certified Nursing Assistant #4 was observed touching a lettuce with their bare hands while preparing Resident #95's sandwich. The findings are: The facility policy titled Food Preparation and Handling with a revised date of 01/2005 documented all food will be prepared and handled using safe and sanitary methods. All staff will avoid bare-hand contact with ready to eat foods, as well as wear single use gloves and use serving utensils. On 02/18/2025 at 12:55 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #4 was observed assisting Resident #95 with their sandiwch during lunch. Certified Nursing Assistant #4 was observed holding a piece of lettuce with their bare hand while they were assembling the sandwich and cutting the sandwich in 4 pieces with 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview during the Recertification Survey conducted from 02/18/2025 to 02/25/2025, the facility did not ensure infection control practices and procedures were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. This was evident in 1 (Resident #130) out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 failed to practice hand hygiene and glove changes during wound care. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Wound Dressings, Dry/Clean with a revised date of 01/2025 documented the purpose of the policy was to provide guidelines for the application of dry, clean dressings. Resident #130 had diagnoses of Stage 3 Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Malnutrition. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #130 had intact cognition and Stage 3 pressure ulcers. The physician's order dated 02/12/2025…
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 · D2023-02-09 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during a Recertification/Complaint survey from 2/2/23 to 2/9/23, the facility did not ensure that the resident and their representative were provided with a written summary of the baseline care plan. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 178) of 2 residents reviewed for Care Planning out of 37 sampled residents. The findings are: The undated facility policy titled Baseline Care Plan (BCP) documented that Social Services shall coordinate with resident/resident's representative for the Care Plan meeting within 3 - 5 days from admission. It also documented that the Care Plan Summary shall be signed by all disciplines and resident/resident's representative. Resident's or his/her representative signature is attestation to participation and receipt of the copy. It further documented that the resident or representative shall receive a copy of the physician orders sheet or orders summary, care plans, and care plan conference summary. Resident # 178 was admitted to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-09 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews conducted during the Recertification/Complaint survey from 2/2/23 to 2/9/23, the facility did not ensure the daily nurse staffing information was posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. This was evident for 4 out of 4 units (Unit 3, Unit 4, Unit 5, and Unit 6). Specifically, daily staffing was not observed posted in a prominent place for residents and visitors for all 4 units. The findings are: There was no facility policy related to daily nurse staffing posting. On 02/02/23 at 09:06 AM, 02/06/23 at 08:36 AM, 02/07/23 at 08:31 AM, 02/08/23 at 08:37 AM, and 02/09/23 at 08:24 AM observations of the facility entry way were made. Visitors were required to make a left turn and walk down a hallway to get to the two elevators used to access the units (Unit 3, Unit 4, Unit 5, and Unit 6) after entering the facility. There was no daily nurse staffing posted at the facility entrance, in the hallway leading to the elevators, or by the elevators that access the units. On 02/09/23 at 10:16 AM, the Staffing Coordinator (SC) was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-09 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 initiated on 2/2/23 and completed on 2/9/23, the facility did not ensure a resident was adequately equipped to call for assistance through a communication system. This was evident for 1 (Resident #31) of 3 residents reviewed for Physical Environment. Specifically, Resident #31 was observed without a functioning call bell in place. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Answering the call bell created on 5/2017, and reviewed 5/2022, documented staff should ensure the call bell is always plugged in and report defective call bells to the nurse supervisor promptly. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included unspecified dementia, post-traumatic stress disorder and difficulty in walking. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #31 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 8 out of 15. Resident #31 required…
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 before2019-12-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and staff interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that infection control practices and procedures were maintained. Specifically, multiple oxygen tubings were observed touching the floor on several occasions. (Resident # 156, Resident #96 and Resident #53) The findings are: 1. Resident # 156 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included Multiple Drug Resistant Organism, Pneumonia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Respiratory Failure and Shortness of Breath. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident cognition is moderately impaired and required extensive assistance with all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). On 12/10/19 at 10:15 AM, on 12/11/19 at 10:02 AM, on 12/12/19 at 10:43 AM, on 12/12/19 at 02:26 PM, the resident's oxygen tubing was observed touching the floor. 2. Resident # 96 was admitted with diagnoses which include Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Heart Failure. The Minimum…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-16 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment was provided. Specifically, dusty, dirty, and stained floor mats next to resident's beds were observed in 3 rooms (Rooms 518, 529, 542) and a resident's bed side table were dirty with a white film (room [ROOM NUMBER], 545). The finding is: The undated facility policy titled Cleaning Resident and Non-Resident Areas documented the purpose is to improve sanitation and ensure the highest level of cleanliness throughout the facility. To control cross contamination, the spread of bacteria and infection, and to maintain the outward appearance of the facility. Daily procedures for cleaning the residents rooms included clean floor mats every day with EPA approved bleach solution wipes and air dry them for 5 minutes and additionally clean mats as needed. Complete high dusting of furniture and clean horizontal surfaces with appropriate cleansers and equipment.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-12-16 · 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 observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that assessments accurately reflected the residents' status. Specifically, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments did not identify the use of a wander/elopement alarm. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Physical Restraint (Resident #21) and 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Accidents (Resident #133) out of a sample of 38 residents. The findings are: The policy titled Wandering, Unsafe Resident dated April 2016 documented staff will identify and assess at risk individuals for potentially correctable risk factors related to unsafe wandering. The resident's care plan will indicate the resident is at risk for wandering or other safety issues. Nursing staff will document Wanderguard. 1). Resident #21 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to Cerebral Infarction, Hemiplegia or Hemiparesis, Difficulty Walking, Muscle Weakness, Cerebrovascular…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-12-16 · 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 observation, interviews and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs were developed. Specifically, a comprehensive care plan was not developed for a resident with hearing impairment. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Vision/Hearing out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident #67). The finding is: The facility's policy and procedure Care Planning - Interdisciplinary Team revised November 2018 documented the care plan is based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and is developed by a Care Planning/Interdisciplinary Team. Resident #67 was admitted with diagnoses that included Hypertension, Hypothyroidism and Dysphagia. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented the resident with moderate impaired cognition, adequate hearing and no hearing aide. On 12/10/19…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ALLURE GROUP — 6 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 | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 5.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HELLER, MOISHE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 20% | since 01/24/2014 |
| RUBIN, MARVIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 40% | since 01/24/2014 |
| RUBIN, SOLOMON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 40% | since 01/24/2014 |
| ALLURE CARE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/24/2014 |
| ALPHA REHABILITATION SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/24/2014 |
| HAMILTON PARK REALTY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/24/2014 |
| GIBILARO, EUGENE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2016 |
| YUDKOWSKY, NAFTALI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/24/2014 |
| LANDAU, JOEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/04/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $6.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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
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 335710. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-25, 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.