Schulman and Schachne Institute for Nursing and Re
555 Rockaway Parkway, Brooklyn, NY 11212 · For profit - Corporation · 448 certified beds · (718) 240-5775 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (23% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0604), cited Dec 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $15,646 in federal fines (most recent 2024-12-24)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 18.6% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.6% | 5.8% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.3% | 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 | 1.2% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.6% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 4.9% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 77.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 12.5% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 4.1% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.3% | 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 | 31.0% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.7% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.4% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.75 | 1.70 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.99 | 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.
44.5% 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 108 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 38 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 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 44% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 44.5%CMS range 36.1–53.2 | 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 | 9.4%CMS range 6.2–13.8 | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 34.2% | 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 | 47.4% | 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 | 76.4% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not 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 stay | 0.0% | 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 | 10.9% | 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 | 6.0%CMS range 3.6–9.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 448 beds and averages 381.8 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 66 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 4.33 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.02 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.38 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 3.64 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.61 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.14 to 0.73 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.
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.
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 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-12-24 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00364046), complaint investigation concluded the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with respect and dignity including the right to be free from physical or chemical restraints imposed for the purposes of discipline or convenience and that are not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. This was evident for 1 out of 39 residents (Resident #1). Specifically, on several occasions Resident #1's wrists were tied with bed sheets to the bed rails. Certified Nursing Assistant #6 admitted to placing Resident #1 in these restraints and intentionally not removing them to prevent Resident #1 from removing their brief and smearing feces. Resident #1 was restrained for the purposes of discipline or convenience. This resulted in serious harm to Resident #1 that was determined to be Immediate Jeopardy Past Noncompliance. The findings are: The facility's Policy and Procedure titled Physical Restraints was revised on…
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 · D2024-12-24 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely 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 conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00364046), the facility did not ensure that an alleged violation involving abuse, neglect, mistreatment, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility. This was evident in 1 out of 39 residents (Residents #1) sampled. Specifically, on 10/14/2024, 10/15/2024, and 11/15/2024 Certified Nursing Assistants #2 and #5 observed Resident #1's wrists tied with bed sheets to the bed rails and reported it to Licensed Practical Nurse #1 and #2. Neither Licensed Practical Nurse #1 nor #2 reported the restraint to Registered Nurse Supervisor, thus the Administrator was not notified within 2 hours of the allegation being made by the Certified Nursing Assistants. The findings are: The facility's Policy and Procedure titled Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect, Misappropriation 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-24 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00364046), the facility did not ensure that a resident received the necessary care and treatment in timely manner and accordance with professional standards of practices. This was evident in 1 out of 39 residents (Residents #1) sampled. Specifically, a Rewrite Orders Cover Sheet dated 12/05/2024, signed by Licensed Practical Nurse #1 on 12/05/2024, documented x-ray of the left forearm to rule out fracture. A Nursing Progress note dated 12/07/2024 at 3:15 PM documented x-ray was done and result pending. A Nursing Progress note dated 12/09/2024 at 10:40 PM documented x-ray result showed fracture of the midshaft and ulna. Resident #1 to be transferred to the hospital. The x-ray was not done timely, and the results were not obtained in a timely manner. The findings include: The facility's Policy and Procedure titled Provision of Radiology Services, revised 12/2023, documented the facility to ensures efficient provision 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.
- Potential for harm · F2024-07-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 during the Recertification survey from 06/26/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was identified during the Dining and Kitchen Tasks. Specifically, 1) During the initial tour of the kitchen, opened and undated package of food were observed in the walk-in freezer. 2) the walk-in refrigerator was noted with juice spills, and 3) the walk-in refrigerator had food on the shelf past the best buy date. The findings are: The facility policy titled Food and Nutrition Sanitation Program with a last revised date of 01/2021 documented that the purpose of the policy was to maintain a clean, safe, and effective environment of care and to prevent the transmission of disease-carrying organisms. Each employee will be designated daily to clean and sanitize all areas throughout the department. Cleaning equipment, walls, floor, and storage areas routinely with appropriate cleaning solution and sanitizing agents…
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 · F2024-07-03 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 06/26/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility did not ensure that garbage and refuse were disposed of properly. Specifically, garbage was not properly contained outside of the facility. The blue trash compactor/dumpster was not covered and there were various types of garbage lying on the ground. There was an overflow of various metal objects from the open dumpster. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Compactor Usage with the effective date of 03/07/2022 documented that waste removal vendor removes and disposes waste related to municipal waste and recycling waste. During an observation on 06/28/2024 at 08:30 AM, there was a blue compactor observed with the lid open. On top of the blue dumpster was observed to have red colored substance, gray colored crutch, old food (green pepper) and blue rubber gloves. There were flies noted in the area. Trash was scattered on the ground around the dumpster area and there was white colored standing water. Also noted to the right side of the trash…
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 · E2024-07-03 · tag F0660 — patternPlan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey from 06/26/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge planning process that focuses on the resident's discharge goals. This was evident for 3 (Residents #136, #44, and #291) of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, an individualized discharge care plan was not developed for Residents #136, #44, and #291. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Planned Transfer and Discharge with a reviewed date of 02/2023 stated that the social worker documents the resident's/designated representative's plan/request to return home or to another skilled nursing facility in the medical record, the assessment section, the coordinated care plan and the progress notes. The facility's policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan with a reviewed date of 12/2023 stated that every comprehensive care plan meeting must include a review and discussion of discharge planning. 1.) Resident #136 had diagnoses 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-03 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 conducted during the Recertification and Complaint (NY00311959) Survey from 06/26/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility did not ensure that food were served at an appetizing temperature during meal service. This was evident for 2 units observed during dining observation. Specifically, food served during lunch meal service were not maintained at palatable and appetizing temperatures. The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure titled Dining and Meal Policy dated 11/2023 documented it was the policy of the facility to serve meals to meet the nutritional needs of residents. The facility's policy on Food and Nutrition Service dated 11/2023 documented it is the policy of the facility to provide meals to residents as scheduled to meet their nutritional requirements and to develop a mechanism that will ensure safe and accurate preparation and distribution of food products. The meal service time for lunch is 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. 1. Resident #27 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 · D2024-07-03 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 06/26/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility did not provide an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #365) out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #365 was not provided with a television or other device to watch their preferred programs. The findings are: The facility policy titled Departmental Scope of Service with Policy Number TR-001.5 for Therapeutic Recreation Department and implemented and revised date 12/23 documented the service provision is made available to all members of the resident population, and is based on individual resident assessment, treatment planning, interests, preferences, and needs. Resident #365 had diagnoses of Multiple Sclerosis, Arthralgia, and Unspecified Fall. The Minimum Data Set assessment…
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 · D2024-07-03 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 06/26/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to prevent further decrease in range of motion. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 69) of 1 resident reviewed for position/mobility. Specifically, there were multiple observations of Resident #60 without the left-hand carrot in place as per Occupational Therapy and physician orders. The findings are: The facility policy titled Adaptive Equipment/Assistive Feeding Devices with a revised date of 11/2023 documented that the rehabilitation department will provide residents requiring a splint, adaptive equipment, or assistive feeding device. The nurse will write instructions for use of the device and add updates to the care plan. Resident # 69 had diagnoses of Cerebral Vascular Accident, Dementia, and Hemiplegia. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented that Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-03 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 and Complaint (NY00340955) Survey from 06/26/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility did not ensure that a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 69) of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #69 did not receive staff assistance for nail trimming and was observed with thick, long, discolored fingernails. The findings are: The facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living with a revised date of 06/2024 documented that a program of activities of daily living (ADL) is provided to residents to prevent disability and promote resident's function at maximum level of independence. The ability of each resident to meet the demands of daily living is assessed by a registered nurse, occupational therapist, and/or physical therapist. Hygiene was included in the policy explanation and compliance…
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 · D2024-07-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the Recertification and Complaint Survey (NY00341538), the facility did not ensure that the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible; and received adequate supervision to prevent accidents. This was evident for 1 (Resident #237) of 5 residents investigated for Accidents, out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, on 05/07/2024, Resident #237 sustained a fall when Certified Nursing Assistant #11 transferred Resident #237 using a mechanical lift without assistance from another staff. The findings are: The facility policy titled Mechanical Lift with a last reviewed date of 02/2020 documented that all residents must be lifted or transferred according to the determined procedure as stated in the resident care plan. A mechanical lift shall be used appropriately to facilitate transfers of residents as required. At least 2 people shall be present during transferring with the lift. Resident #237 had diagnoses 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.
Show the remaining 7 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-27 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review during an abbreviated survey (Case #NY00332762, NY00332416) the facility did not ensure that the resident's representative was notified of changes to a resident skin. This was evidenced in one of three residents sampled (Resident #1). Specifically, on 01/29/2024, Resident #1' s designated family member was visiting Resident #1 and saw healing abrasions to the front of the legs below the knees (shins). The family member was not aware of the skin changes. The Findings are: The facility's policy titled, Change in Resident Condition, dated 8/2023, documented Circumstances Requiring Notification are: 1. Accidents resulting in injury 2. Potential to require physician intervention. Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses include Dementia, (memory loss), Cerebrovascular Accident (a stroke) with Left side weakness, and Seizures. Resident #1 was non-verbal, legally blind, and aphasic (unable to speak). The Minimum Data Set (MDS-tool used to determine level 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.
- Potential for harm · E2022-06-21 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure an effective pest control program was maintained. This was evident for 1 (6th floor) of 7 residential floors in 1 of 2 facility buildings. Specifically, there were multiple observations of roaches infestation in resident rooms on the facility's 6th floor. The findings are: The facility policy titled Building Services: Pest Control dated 1/2022 documented the facility will control control pest infestations throughout all areas of the Medical Center by contracting with a qualified pest management company and establishing a service schedule. On 06/15/22 at 03:45 PM, 5 roaches were observed walking on the floor of room [ROOM NUMBER] on the 6th floor residential unit. On 06/16/22 at 01:24 PM, 06/17/22 at 01:00 PM, and 06/21/22 10:18 AM, observations of several live and dead roaches were observed in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The roaches were observed crawling up the walls and on resident belongings…
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 before2022-06-21 · 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 FACILITY Resident Assessment Based on staff interview and record review conducted during a recertification and abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that each portion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflect the resident's status. This was evident for 2 residents out of 38 sampled residents. (Resident # 11, Resident #207). Specifically, Resident #11's Annual MDS assessment inaccurately documented that Resident #11 received Insulin for seven days while in the facility. Resident #207's Annual MDS assessment did not accurately document that the resident received dialysis three times weekly while a resident. The findings are: The facility's Policy titled Completion of MDS 3.0 dated last reviewed 10/2021 documented residents are assessed, using a comprehensive assessment process, in order to identify care needs and to develop interdisciplinary care plan. The Policy further documented According to Federal regulations, the facility conducts initially and periodically a comprehensive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-21 · 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, record review, and interview conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive care plan (CCP) was developed to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs. This was evident for 2 (Resident #27, Resident #67) of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #27 was observed with hoarding behavior and documented refusals of medications without a developed CCP to address the behaviors; and 2) there was no documented evidence a CCP related to Psychotropic Drug Use was developed for Resident #67 who receives antipsychotic and anti-depressant medication. The findings are: The facility policy titled Interdisciplinary Person-Centered Care Planning dated 05/2022 documented to ensure effective implementation of a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident which includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychological needs that are identified in the comprehensive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-21 · 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 interviews conducted during the Recertification and Complaint survey from 6/13/2022 to 6/21/2022, the facility did not ensure, to the extent practicable, that residents were involved in developing the comprehensive care plan and making decisions about their care. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that residents were afforded the opportunity to participate in the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) meeting. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Participation in Care Planning out of a sample of 38 residents (Resident # 319). The findings are: The facility policy titled Interdisciplinary Person Centered Care Planning with original date 07/1995 and last revised date in 05/22 documented under Procedure section 1) The Interdisciplinary Plan of Care is based on the initial person centered Comprehensive Assessment, and will be formulated and finalized at the Interdisciplinary meeting after the completion of the 1.1 Admission/readmission MDS, 1.2 Quarterly MDS, 1.3 Annual MDS,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-21 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a resident diagnosed with dementia, received the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. This was evident for 1 (Resident #67) of 3 residents reviewed for Dementia Care. Specifically, the facility did not develop a comprehensive care plan (CCP) related to dementia for Resident #67 who was diagnosed with dementia. The findings are: The facility policy titled Interdisciplinary Person-Centered Care Planning dated 05/2022 documented to ensure effective implementation of a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident which includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychological needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. Resident #67 had diagnoses of psychosis and dementia with behavioral disturbance. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS)…
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 before2019-12-24 · 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 record review and staff interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure assessment accurately reflected the resident status. Specifically, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment did not document that a resident was receiving dialysis services. This was evident of 1 out 2 one resident reviewed for Dialysis out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident #379). The findings are: The facility document titled Policy and Procedures: Conducting an Accurate Resident Assessment revised 11/2019 documented under the section entitled Procedure: Accurate assessments addressing each resident's status, needs, strengths, and areas of decline must be conducted by qualified staff that are knowledgeable about the resident and correctly documented in the medical record. Resident #379 was admitted to facility with diagnoses that included: Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) on Hemodialysis (HD), and Diabetes. The Comprehensive Care Plan entitled Hemodialysis: Actual…
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
$15,646 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $15,646 — penalty dated 2024-12-24
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 335381. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-07-03, 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.