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

New Carlton Rehab and Nursing Center, LLC

405 Carlton Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11238 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 148 certified beds · (718) 789-6262 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (718) 789-6262 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citations — no harm found (F0604, F0609, F0610) — most recent Jul 2024
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (22% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • about 22% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
  • its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

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

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

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 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

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
677 Atlantic Ave · (212) 300-2836 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
94 Greene Ave · (718) 783-0890 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
17 Greene Ave · (929) 585-5685 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Carlton Ave · (212) 639-9675 · 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 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 improved from 2 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.

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 increased11.8%14.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.2%5.8%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.2%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.4%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.8%19.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.0%3.1%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened8.4%12.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication4.5%13.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.4%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.6%6.5%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control3.3%19.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table10.8%13.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine29.6%78.8%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission16.1%20.6%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit6.1%9.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.831.701.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.131.361.80better

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

41.9% 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 25 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

41.9%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
83.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.38U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.21hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.13hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 83.6% 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 55 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 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 64% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 SNF41.9%CMS range 29.4–57.651.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.2%CMS range 8.2–15.210.7%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 discharge83.6%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 discharge87.3%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 discharge74.5%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 setting21.7%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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay1.2%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 hospitalization10.6%CMS range 6.3–15.67.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.561.02Oct 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

0.59
RN hours/ resident / day
0.61
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.90
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.10
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.47
RN hoursweekends
21.5%
Total nursing turnover
10.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 148 beds and averages 138.2 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.10 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.90 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.81 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.21 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.64 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 22% 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

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-07-16)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2022-10-06)

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.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.

  • Potential for harm · E2024-07-16 · 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, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 07/09/2024 to 07/16/2024, the facility did not ensure that residents' right to a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment was maintained. This was evident for 1 (4th floor) of 4 resident units. Specifically, 1.) multiple rooms on the 4th floor were observed with mismatched paint on the floor, 2.) the shared bathroom, opposite room [ROOM NUMBER], had broken and missing tiles under the sink, and dusty walls and fans, 3.) the baseboard on the unit dining room was not attached to the wall, 4.) the dry wall in multiple rooms were cracked and some with missing paint, and 5.) a hole was observed on the dry wall stuffed with a copper colored steel wool. The findings are: The undated policy titled Cleaning A Resident Room and Cleaning Resident and Public Bathrooms documented that the purpose of the policy was to provide daily housekeeping employees with a complete outline of the equipment and supplies necessary to…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-16 · 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 observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 07/09/2024 to 07/16/2024, the facility did not ensure that food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was evident during the kitchen task. Specifically, there were multiple expired food items in the kitchen dry storage room. The findings are: The undated facility policy titled Food Storage documented sufficient storage facilities are provided to keep foods safe, wholesome, and appetizing. All stock must be rotated with each new order received. Rotating stock is essential to ensure the freshness and highest quality of all foods. Old stock is always used first, First in - First out method. An initial tour of the kitchen was conducted on 07/09/2024 from 9:48 AM to 10:33 AM with the Director of Food Services and Dietary Aide #1. The following were observed: 4 boxes of 24 count 8 ounces wild berry oral supplement with a use by date of 06/20/2024; 1 box of 48 count 5 ounces chocolate pudding with an expiration date of 03/26/2024; 1 box of 24…

    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 · E2024-07-16 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — pattern
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 07/09/2024 to 07/16/2024, the facility did not ensure that the garbage storage area were maintained in a sanitary condition. This was evident during the Kitchen and Environmental observation. Specifically, garbage was not properly contained outside of the facility. The garbage dumpster and trash bins were not covered to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Garbage Removal with a revision date of 02/2024 documented that all garbage and rubbish containing food wastes shall be kept in containers. All garbage and rubbish containers shall be provided with fitting lids or covers and must be kept covered when stored or not in continuous use. Housekeeping personnel will empty garbage and rubbish containers taking care not to contaminate food, equipment, utensils or food preparation areas while cleaning. Garbage and rubbish containing food wastes will be stored in a manner that is inaccessible to vermin. Outside dumpsters…

    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 · E2024-07-16 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — pattern
    Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 07/09/2024 to 07/16/2024, the facility did not ensure a safe functional environment for the staff. This was evident during the kitchen observation. Specifically, accumulation of dusts were observed on different parts of the kitchen, floor tiles were observed with cracks, and the dry wall in the dry storage room had cracks and holes. The findings are: The facility policy titled Pest Control with a revision date of 01/2022 documented that interior walls are free of cracks and repaired as needed by facility management. During an observation on 07/09/2024 from 9:50 AM to 10:09 AM and on 07/12/2024 at 10:26 AM, the kitchen ceiling pipes, and the back of the 2-tier oven were noted with brown colored dust. The floor fan that was in between the 3-compartment sink and the hand washing sink had dust accumulation with visible strands of dust attached to it. During an observation on 07/10/2024 from 10:28 AM to 10:50 AM, dust accumulation was noted on the kitchen walls, the 2 tier oven, the light…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-07-16 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — pattern
    Make sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and staff interview conducted during the Recertification Survey from 07/09/2024 to 07/16/2024, the facility did not maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility is free of pests and rodents. This was evident during the environmental observation. Specifically, 1.) vermin droppings were noted on the boxes and top of cans in the kitchen dry storage room, 2.) a cockroach was observed crawling in a resident's room and on the metal frame of the overhead grease trap hood over the cooking stove in the kitchen, 3.) flies were observed in the kitchen and on the 2nd floor unit hallway. The findings include but are not limited to: The facility policy titled Pest Control with a revision date of 02/2022 documented that the purpose of the policy is to prevent and control the entrance of pests and eradicate infestations at the facility. During an observation on 07/09/2024 at 10:13 AM in the kitchen dry storage room, vermin droppings were noted in an open box containing 12 cans of evaporated milk. During an observation on 07/10/2024 at 10:50 AM,…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-16 · 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 record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Complaint Survey (NY00338835) from 07/09/2024 to 07/16/2024, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse were thoroughly investigated. This was evident in 1 (Resident #121) of 25 total sampled residents. Specifically, on 04/07/2024, Registered Nurse #3 received a report that Resident #121 alleged that Certified Nursing Assistant #6 roughed them up in the bathroom. Registered Nurse #3 did not initiate an investigation and did not put measures in place to ensure that further potential abuse does not occur. The investigation was initiated by the Director of Nursing on 04/08/2024. Additionally, there was no documented evidence that Resident #121 was immediately assessed to identify any potential injury as a result of the allegation. The findings are: The facility policy titled Abuse Prevention with a revised date of 02/2024 documented that all alleged or suspected incidents of abuse will be thoroughly…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-16 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Complaint Survey (NY00338835) from 07/09/2024 to 07/16/2024, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made to the State Survey Agency in accordance with State law through established procedures. This was evident in 1 (Resident #121) of 25 total sampled residents. Specifically, on 04/07/2024, the facility received a report that Resident #121 alleged that Certified Nursing Assistant #6 roughed them up in the bathroom. The facility did not report the allegation to the New York State Department of Health. The findings are: The facility policy titled Abuse Prevention with a revised date of 02/2024 documented that any case in which abuse, neglect, mistreatment, or misappropriation of residents' property, or exploitation has been identified via an investigation, or when a conclusion cannot be drawn, will be reported promptly 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-10-06 · 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 record review, and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment accurately reflected a resident's status. This was evident for 3 of 28 investigated sampled residents (Resident #101, Resident #116 and Resident #122). Specifically, (1). the MDS for Resident #122 did not accurately reflect the resident's behavior of refusing medication, and the antipsychotic medication review was not completed even though the resident received antipsychotic medication daily. (2) The MDS assessment for Resident #101 did not accurately reflect the resident's level of assistance required for feeding and toileting. (3)The MDS assessment for Resident #116 did not reflect the resident was recieving dialysis. The findings are: The facility policy titled Minimum Data Set (MDS) Completion Policy and Procedure last revised 07/2022 documented the purpose to identify each resident's needs, problems and strengths in order to establish a course of action through…

    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 · Fcited before2019-11-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    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 and interview, during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety to prevent foodborne illness. Specifically 1) food items were observed unlabeled and undated in a cook prep fridge and meat freezer, 2) employee lunch food items were observed in the cook prep fridge, 3) food items were observed with freezer burn and falling out of packaging in the freezer, and 4) food boxes were observed crushed, opened, and water marked in the freezer. This was observed during the Kitchen Observation Facility Task. The findings are: The facility policy titled Food Storage and Handling dated 2/2018 documented foods shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. Food service, or other designated staff, will maintain clean food storage areas at all times. All foods stored in the refrigerator will be covered, labeled, and dated. The freezer must keep foods frozen solid. Wrappers of frozen foods must stay…

    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 · E2019-11-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and staff interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that infection control practices and procedures were maintained. Specifically, an oxygen tubing was observed touching the floor on several occasions and the infection control policy and procedures were not reviewed annually. This was evident for 1 of 28 residents reviewed in the investigation sample (Resident # 79). The finding is: 1) Resident # 79 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which includes heart failure, dementia, seizure disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD and acute respiratory distress. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident cognition is severely impaired and required extensive assistance with all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). On 11/17/19 at 10:25 AM, on 11/18/19 at 10:10 AM, on 11/19/19 at 10:53 AM and on 11/20/19 at 10:26 AM, the resident's oxygen tubing was observed touching the floor. On 11/20/19 03:31 PM, the Certified Nursing Assistant…

    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
Show the remaining 6 citations
  • Potential for harm · D2019-11-21 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and staff interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that advance directives were periodically reviewed with a resident. Specifically, advance directives were not discussed or reviewed periodically with a resident at least annually. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Advance Directives (Resident #123). The finding is: The facility policy titled Advance Directive dated 01/18 documented advance directives consist of HCP, Do Not Resuscitate, and Living Will. A HCP is a document delegating authority to another adult, known as a Health Care Agent, to make health care decisions on behalf of the resident when the resident has become incapacitated. HCP can update, modify MOLST at any time. The facility will ensure update of this record and the physician will sign off. At the time of admission, the facility informs the resident or legal representative about the resident's rights concerning advance directives. The social worker provides counseling and education to resident or resident's legal…

    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 · D2019-11-21 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    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 during the Recertification Survey, the facility did not ensure that residents' privacy and confidentiality were maintained. Specifically, a resident's privacy curtain when fully extended did not provide complete closure and privacy. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Privacy out of a total sample of 28 residents (Resident # 2). The findings is: Resident #2 was admitted with diagnoses which includes Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy and Unspecified Dementia with behavioral disturbance. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had intact cognition. On 11/18/19 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident #2 at the bedside. The resident stated that the privacy curtain does not provide privacy. Maintenance removed an additional curtain in Spring 2019. Resident #2 completely extended the privacy curtains and the Surveyor observed a wide gap/opening. The width of curtain was not…

    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 · D2019-11-21 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record review and interviews conducted during the recertification Survey, the facility did not ensure a resident was free form Physical Restraints. Specifically, there was no documented evidence that a resident with an abnormal binder was assessed for the need of the restraint (abdominal binder), and that a least restrictive alternative was used prior to the implementation of the restraint. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Physical restraints out of a total sample of 28 residents( Resident #119). The Findings are: The facility Policy entitled Restraint reductions, revised 2/18, documented: Upon the Licensed Unit Nurse Determining that a resident may be a candidate for a restraint device, the Unit Nurse is to make a referral to the designated Nurse Manager/Supervisor. Nurse manger/Supervision will them assess the resident's functional status/needs. Less restrictive alternative has been tried/considered and exhausted prior to using a device that constitutes restraint. Resident #119 had diagnoses which include Dementia, Seizures, Encounter…

    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 before2019-11-21 · 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 survey, the facility did not ensure that assessments accurately reflected the residents' status. Specifically, 1) the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #123 did not identify the resident had a Health Care Proxy. 2) The MDS assessment for Resident #119 did not identify the use of a physical restraint (abdominal binder). This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Advance Directives (Resident #123) and 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Physical Restraint (Resident #119). The findings are: The policy titled Minimum Data Set Completion dated 11/18 documented all residents will be assessed initially on admission utilizing the resident assessment tool and quarterly there after. The MDS Coordinator assigns the staff to complete the specific sections of the MDS, Social Service is in charge of completing section S-0170A Advance Directives, documenting who has the responsibility for making decisions regarding resident's healthcare…

    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 · D2019-11-21 · 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 record reviews and staff interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the development and implementation of comprehensive person-centered care plans for residents, consistent with the resident rights that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet residents medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. Specifically, (1) a comprehensive care plan was not developed for a resident with dentures. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Dental (Resident #69). The findings is: The facility Policy entitled Comprehensive Care Plan dated last revised 11/17 documented It is the policy of this facility that each resident have a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) in his/her medical record that illustrates actual or potential problems derived from the minimum data set (MDS and assessment of the resident physical, psychosocial/emotional, educational, and clinical needs. The CCP will record measurable…

    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 · D2019-11-21 · 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 reviews and staff interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure to the extent practicable, that residents participated in the development, review and revision of the comprehensive care plan (CCP). Specifically, residents were not invited to the comprehensive care plan meeting. This was evident for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for Participation in Care Planning (Residents # 69 and 76). The findings are: The undated facility policy Minimum Data Set (MDS) Completion Policy and Procedure documented that the Social Worker/Case Worker will notify the resident and/or designated representative of their right to participate in their plan of care with an opportunity for input into the CCP. Contacts/notifies resident family/designated representative to attend CCP meeting. 1.) Resident #76 had diagnoses which include Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia. On 11/17/19 at 11:17 AM, an interview was conducting with Resident #76. The resident stated she was not invited to attend 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

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

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
BLEIER, CHAYAIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST20%since 07/29/2003
BRAUNSTEIN, JACQUELINEIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST50%since 07/29/2003
STERN, JOSEPHIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST30%since 07/29/2003
HAK, VIRENDERIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/04/2025
DEITEL, BETZALELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/10/2025
FEON, GALINAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/08/2007

CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$21.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-7.3%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$5.0M
Related-party expense22% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 83%Medicare 15%Other / private 2%

About 83% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $5.0M 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$489per resident / day
operating cost
$14,860per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$455per 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 335131. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-07-16, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next