King David Center for Nursing And Rehabilitation

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

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.

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.

44.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 196 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 79.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 248 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 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 76% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 42% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 271 beds and averages 265.1 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 6 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 3.92 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.97 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.36 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 4.10 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.11 to 0.62 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 23% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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.

18 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · E2025-12-03 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
  Honor 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, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain the residents' right to a safe, clean, and comfortable homelike environment. Specifically, housekeeping and maintenance services were not maintained in Units 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. The findings include but are not limited to: The facility's undated Maintenance Policy and Procedure Manual stated that the building will be maintained in good repair and kept free of hazards. The responsibility for all maintenance and all preventive maintenance rests with the Maintenance Services Director, who reports directly to Administration. The undated Cleaning Resident and Non-Resident Area policy documented that the purpose of the policy was to improve sanitation and ensure the highest level of cleanliness throughout the facility. Frequent environmental cleaning of all frequently touched surfaces will be performed daily. 1.) During observation from 09/24/2025 to 10/01/2025, the following were observed: a. The resident's closet in room [ROOM NUMBER]…

  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 · E2025-12-03 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — pattern
  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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews, during the Recertification and Complaint (#523045) Survey, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, including injuries of unknown source were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or no later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the New York State Department of Health. This was evident for 3 (Residents #63, 145, and 12) of 4 residents reviewed for Accidents out of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1.) On 11/25/2024, Resident #63 had an unwitnessed incident when they were observed on the floor and complained of pain to the left hip. The resident was transferred to the hospital and was found to have sustained left intertrochanteric fracture. This incident was not reported to the New York State…

  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 · E2025-12-03 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
  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 interview and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 09/24/2025 to 10/01/2025, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan was reviewed and revised to address a resident's needs. This was evident for 2 (Residents #164 and #116) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #164's comprehensive care plan was not reviewed and revised to reflect Resident #164's behavior problem, and 2) Resident #116's comprehensive care plans were not reviewed and revised to reflect the elopement/wandering behavior.The findings include: The undated facility policy titled Care Plans - Comprehensive documented the care plans are revised as changes in the resident's condition dictate. The policy also documented care plans are reviewed at least quarterly. 1.) Resident #164 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included Unspecified Dementia, Schizoaffective Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set 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 · E2025-12-03 · 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 interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. This was evident during the kitchen observation task and dining observation for one (1) (Unit 8) of 7 units observed. Specifically, 1.) The kitchen staff's facial hair was not fully covered during food preparation, 2.) Enteral feedings were not discarded past it's used by date, and 3.) Certified Nursing Assistant #8 was handling residents' food with bare hands. The findings include:1.) The facility policy and procedure titled Dietary/Food Handling dated 01/2025 documented clean uniforms must be worn daily. Hairnets or caps must be worn effectively to keep hair from contacting exposed food, clean equipment, utensils and linens. On 09/24/2025 at 9:40 AM, [NAME] #1 was observed chopping chicken with their beard net not fully covering their beard. On 09/26/2025 at 10:07 AM, [NAME] #1 was observed cooking fish on the stove with their sideburns not properly covered and their beard restraint was not fully covering their beard.…

  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 · D2025-12-03 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  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, the facility failed to ensure that all injuries of unknown origin were thoroughly investigated. This was evident for 1 (Resident #145) of 3 residents reviewed for Notification of Change out of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, on 04/06/2025, Resident #145 was observed with a laceration on the right side of their head. The facility initiated the investigation but failed to thoroughly investigate the incident to rule out abuse and/or neglect. The findings include:The facility policy titled Investigating Unexplained Injuries which was last revised on 12/2024 documented an investigation of all unexplained injuries (including bruises, abrasions, and injuries of an unknown source) will be conducted by the risk manager, director of nursing services, and/or other individual appointed by the administrator, to ensure that the safety of the residents had not been jeopardized. Resident #145 had diagnoses of Vascular Dementia, Muscle Weakness, and Personal History of…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident was developed and implemented, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs. This was evident in 1 of 8 residents reviewed for Accidents (Resident #116) and 1 out of 5 residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications (Resident #164). Specifically, 1.) Resident # 116 had no comprehensive care plan developed to address ongoing disruptive behaviors. 2.) Resident #164 had no comprehensive care plan developed for anticoagulant therapy. The findings include: The undated facility policy and procedure titled Comprehensive Care Plans documented a comprehensive care plan includes measurable objectives, and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and physiological needs to develop for each resident. The policy further documented that the facility would develop and maintain a…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that infection control prevention 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 one (1) of 1 resident observed for respiratory care. Specifically, on 09/25/2025, Enhanced Barrier Precautions were not maintained during tracheostomy suctioning. The findings include:The facility's policy and procedure titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions with a revised date of 03/24/2025 documented that in addition to standard precautions, Enhanced Barrier Precautions will be considered for residents who are at high risk of both acquisition of and colonization with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention multidrug resistant organisms. The Enhanced Barrier Precautions refers to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities. Resident #1 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-01-10 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolated
  Allow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification/Complaint survey conducted from 1/4/24 to 1/10/24, the facility did not ensure that the resident was offered the opportunity to participate in the revision and/or review of the comprehensive care plan. Specifically, resident and resident's representatives were not consistently invited to participate in their care plan meetings. This was evident for 1 resident reviewed for care plans out of 38 residents. (Residents #112). The findings are: The facility policy titled Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team last revised on 1/2023 documented, the resident, the resident's family and/or the resident legal representative/guardian or surrogate are encouraged to participate in the development of and revisions to the resident's care plan. Resident #112 was admitted with diagnoses that included Vascular Dementia, Anxiety, Hemiplegia, and Hemiparesis. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident was severely…

  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 · D2024-01-10 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 1/4/24 to 1/10/24, the facility did not ensure that the resident received services that accommodated the resident's needs and preferences. Specifically, the call bell in Resident #237's bathroom did not work. The findings are: Resident #237 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included Vascular Dementia, Psychotic Disturbance, and Depression. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented that Resident #237 had moderately impaired cognition, required partial/moderate assistance when performing Activities of Daily Living and supervision for mobility and transfers. The Comprehensive Care Plan for focus resident is at High Risk for Falls last revised on 10/27/23 included interventions of be sure call light is within reach and encourage to use it for assistance as needed, needs prompt response to all requests for assistance, and assist with toileting upon awakening, before/after…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-10 · 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, interviews, and record reviews during a Recertification/Complaint survey from 1/4/23 to 1/10/23, the facility did not ensure that assessments accurately reflected the residents' status. Specifically, the admission assessment did not reflect the presence of a colostomy device that was used for a resident. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Urinary Catheter out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident #24) The findings are: The facility's policy regarding Minimum Data Set (MDS) Guideline for Completion last reviewed 10/01/23 documented, It is the policy of all Allure Facilities to ensure accurate and timely completion of MDS/Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for all residents in accordance with the Federal and State Operation Manual. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which include Obstructive Uropathy, Unspecified Hydronephrosis, and Chronic Obstructive Pyelonephritis. The admission Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented that Resident #24 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 18 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 $11.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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