Peninsula Nursing And Rehabilitation Center
50 15 Beach Channel Drive, Far Rockaway, NY 11691 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 200 certified beds · (718) 734-2000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- 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
- the CMS record shows $81,387 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-31)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- about 28% 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 4 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 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 | 9.0% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.3% | 5.8% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 97.8% | 19.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.7% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.9% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 3.4% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.0% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.8% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 16.7% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.4% | 9.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.98 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.65 | 1.36 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ 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.
38.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 103 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 73.2% 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 56 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 | 38.9%CMS range 29.1–48.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.7%CMS range 6.5–13.9 | 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 | 73.2% | 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 | 69.6% | 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 | 62.5% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 93.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.2%CMS range 4.0–12.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.03 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 200 beds and averages 177.3 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 23 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 3.28 hrs/resident/day is below 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 1.99 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 2.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.43 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.13 to 0.76 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-10-31 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (2643598), the facility failed to provide an environment that is free from accident hazards and to ensure that a resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents. This was evident for one (1) of 14 residents sampled (Resident #1). Specifically, Resident #1, who was severely cognitively impaired, at risk for aspiration/choking, required supervision with eating and had a history of wandering and taking other resident's food, was found unresponsive in the hallway on 08/16/2025 at 11:45 PM by Certified Nursing Assistant #1. Emergency Medical Service was called at 00:00:12 (12 seconds after midnight) and they arrived at the facility at 00:04 AM (12:04 AM) on 08/17/2025. Resident #1 was pronounced deceased at 12:27 AM by the Emergency Medical Service team. This resulted in actual harm and death of Resident #1 that was Immediate Jeopardy with the potential for serious harm serious injury to 40 residents who were identified at risk for aspiration precaution.The findings include:A policy…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-10-31 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (2643598), the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices. This was evident for one (1) of 14 residents (Residents #1) sampled. Specifically, Resident #1 was found unresponsive in the hallway on 08/16/2025 at 11:45 PM by Certified Nursing Assistant #1 and was not immediately assessed and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was not initiated at that time. Additionally, Emergency Medical Services was called 15 minutes after the resident was found and responded to the scene at 12:04 AM on 08/17/2025. Resident #1 was pronounced deceased at 12:27 AM by the Emergency Medical Service team. This resulted in actual harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy.The findings include:A policy titled Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation dated 04/18/2014 documented cardiopulmonary resuscitation to be initiated on all residents who do not have a physician's order for do 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-10-31 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (2643598), the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations are thoroughly investigated in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, and that the results of all investigations are reported to the administrator or his or her designated representative and to other officials in accordance with State law, including to the State Survey Agency. This was evident for 1 of 14 residents (Residents #1) sampled. Specifically, Resident #1, who was severely cognitively impaired, at risk for aspiration/choking, required supervision with eating and had a history of wandering and taking other resident's food, was found unresponsive in the hallway on 08/16/2025 at 11:45 PM by Certified Nursing Assistant #1. Emergency Medical Service was called at midnight and responded at 12:04 AM on 08/17/2025. Resident #1 was pronounced deceased at 12:27 AM by the Emergency Medical Service team. The facility did not conduct a thorough investigation to ascertain how Resident #1, who was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 06/24/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility did not ensure that infection control prevention practices and procedures were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, 1). Enhanced Barrier Precautions were not implemented for 2 residents (Resident #377 and Resident #50) with indwelling medical devices and 1 resident (Resident #23) during a wound care observation, and 2). A Certified Nursing Assistant did not perform hand hygiene while assisting multiple residents in the dining room. The findings are: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality/Quality, Safety & Oversight Group memorandum titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions in Nursing Homes, Ref: QSO-24-08-NH dated 03/20/2024 documented that effective 04/01/2024, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is…
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 F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 06/26/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident, or their designated representative was provided appropriate notification at the termination of Medicare Part A benefits. This was evident for 2 (Residents #166 and 428) of 3 residents reviewed for Beneficiary Notification out of 37 total sampled residents. Specifically, the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage were not mailed out to Resident #166 and #428 designated representatives on the same day as telephone notification. The findings are: The facility policy titled Medicare Determination for SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) with an effective date of 1/2021 states that the facility is required to provide notification of termination of services/Medicare coverage at least 2 business days before the last covered day. Notices mailed are certified and the receipt of certified mail is stapled to a copy of the letter and maintained in the MDS office for file. 1. Resident #166 was discharged from skilled services on 5/28/2024 with 59 days…
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 F0711 — isolatedEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 06/24/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility failed to ensure that the physician reviewed the resident's total program of care. This was evident for 2 residents (Resident #50 and Resident #377) observed for Medication Administration. Specifically, there were no physician orders specifying care and treatment for the maintenance of intravenous catheter lines. The findings are: The facility policy titled Care and Treatment of the Resident -Physician Orders Monthly Review, effective 06/2017, documented that to ensure appropriate ordering of medications, treatments, and services, it is the policy of the facility that the medical provider shall review and renew the monthly medication and treatments for the resident. The facility's policy titled Care and Treatment of the Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter, Maintenance and Care, documented that it is the policy of the facility to provide intermediate to long-term venous access in a safe, aseptic manner: General Guidelines Include - Lines should…
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 F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey completed from 6/26/2024 to 7/3/2024, the facility did not ensure that a resident was promptly referred for annual dental evaluation and care. This was evident for 1 (Resident #92) of 4 residents reviewed for Dental out of a sample of 37 residents. Specifically, an annual dental evaluation was not performed for Resident #92. The facility policy titled Dental and Oral Health Services dated 11/2017 states that it is the policy of the facility to make routine and 24-hour emergency dental care available to its resident and that the dentist shall perform an annual re-evaluation for reach resident. A record of dental services and evaluations will be maintained in the resident's medical chart. Resident #92 was admitted with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, and Seizure Disorder. The Annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented that Resident #92 was moderately cognitively impaired, did…
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 · D2022-07-28 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 7/21/22 to 7/28/22, the facility did not ensure housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior were provided for 1 (Unit 4-Bay) of 5 units. Specifically, a resident's room, staff bathroom, oxygen room, and resident care equipment were observed dirty and in disrepair. The findings are: On 07/26/22 at 11:53 AM, the following was observed during a tour of Unit 4-Bay: 1. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] contained walls with brownish stains and streaks throughout the entire room. The wall paint behind the head of the resident's bed was cracked and chipped, and the floors had black dirt that was ground into the tiles and not easily removed. One metal bed frame had brown stains and dust, and an oxygen concentrator in use was covered with dust and debris. The garbage bin was heavily soiled and stained. A blue vinyl chair had a missing right arm rest, loose swiveling…
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 · D2022-07-28 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview conducted during the Recertification / Complaint (NY274057, NY294505, NY286257, NY294811, NY264504, NY295942, NY294690, NY286257, NY290627) survey from 07/21/2022 to 07/28/2022, the facility did not ensure an ongoing program of activities was provided to meet the interests of, and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the resident based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan. This was evident for 1 (Resident #320) of 2 residents reviewed for Activities out of 37 sampled residents. Specifically, a resident was observed for extended periods of time not participating in any meaningful activities. The finding is: The facility Policy and Procedure tilted Activity Recreation Program and Assessment with effective date 03/2022 documented The facility shall provide for an ongoing program of activities designed to meet the interests and the physical, mental, psychosocial wellbeing of each resident. Resident #320 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis that included Anemia, Atrial fibrillation, and End…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-14 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 each resident was treated with respect and dignity and received care in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life. This was identified for 1 (Resident #78) of 1 resident reviewed for dignity. Specifically, Resident #78 had a Foley bag attached to a Suprapubic catheter. The Foley bag was observed hanging at the bedside in his room without a privacy pouch to maintain the resident's dignity and privacy. The uncovered Foley bag was visible to anyone passing by his room. The finding is: The facility's policy and procedure dated 11/2017 titled Dignity documented . Using dignity-enhancing tools, such as catheter bag covers . Resident #78 has diagnoses including End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), Obstructive and Reflux Uropathy, and Hemiplegia. The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-14 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that accident report investigations were thoroughly investigated to establish the cause of a fall. This was identified for one (Resident #79) of five residents reviewed for falls. Specifically, Resident #79 had a fall on 4/15/19 in the unit dining room during the dinner meal, sustained a laceration to the back of the head and was sent to the hospital for Head Trauma. The Accident/Incident (A/I) Report lacked documented evidence of who was in the dining room with the resident at the time of the fall. The finding is: Resident #79 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Hemiplegia, and Dysphagia. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 3 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The resident had no behavior problems, required extensive assist 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 · D2019-08-14 · 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 interviews during the Recertification Survey the facility did not ensure that comprehensive person-centered care plans were implemented for each resident to meet the resident's medical and nursing needs. This was identified for one (Resident #42) of six residents reviewed for Position/Mobility and one (Resident #123) of six residents reviewed for Communication. Specifically, 1) Resident #42 had a Physician's order to wear a Z-Flex boot to the right foot at all times; however, the resident was observed on two occasions not wearing the boot; and; 2) Resident #123 had a Physician's order for a left half siderail to be up while the resident was in bed; however, the resident's bed did not have a left siderail. The findings are: 1) Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus, Seizure Disorder, and Acquired Absence of Left Leg Below Knee. The 5/26/19 Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented a Brief Interview for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-14 · 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 staff interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment. This was identified for 1 (Resident #129) of 1 resident reviewed for accidents. Specifically, Resident #129 has a fall incident with an injury. Review of the resident's CCP developed for Falls revealed that the CCP was not updated to reflect the 6/20/19 fall incident. The finding is: The facility's policy and procedure dated 7/2018 titled Care Planning Process documented . The care plan is reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment . The care plan is revised by the members of the Interdisciplinary Team based on changing goals, preferences and needs of the resident, and in response to current intervention. The facility's policy and procedure dated 11/2016 titled Resident Accident Reporting And Investigation- New York documented . 14. Will review the plan of care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-14 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that services provided or arranged by the facility, as outlined by the the comprehensive care plan meet the current professional standards of quality. This was identified for one (Resident #142) of one resident reviewed for Skin Condition. Specifically, Resident #142 had a Physician's order for dressing change to his Left Plantar open callus one time daily on even days. The resident was observed on 8/7/19 with a dressing on his Left Plantar open callus dated 8/2/19. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated August 2019 was signed on 8/4/19 and 8/6/19 as care was rendered; however, the care was not provided. The finding is: Resident #142 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type II Diabetes Mellitus with Foot Ulcer and Hypertension. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 11…
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 before2019-08-14 · 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 staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, and the comprehensive person-centered care plan. This was identified for one (Resident #142) of one resident reviewed for Skin Condition. Specifically, Resident #142 had a Physician's order for dressing change to his Left Plantar open callus one time daily on even days and treatment was not administered as ordered by the Physician on 8/4/19 and 8/6/19. Additionally, the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated August 2019 was signed on 8/4/19 and 8/6/19 as care being rendered when care was not provided. The finding is: Resident #142 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Type II Diabetes Mellitus with Foot Ulcer and Hypertension. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 11 which…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-14 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, and interviews during the Recertification Survey the facility did not ensure that controlled drugs were stored in accordance with State and Federal laws, including storing controlled drugs in separately locked, permanently affixed compartments in the medication carts. This was identified on 1 of 5 medication carts. Specifically, the medication cart on 3rd floor Oceanside unit had a faulty lock mechanism on the narcotic box and the box contained narcotic medication. The finding is: The facility Policy and Procedure dated 6/2018 titled storage of drugs, documented it is the policy of the facility that all medications be stored in accordance with federal and state laws and guidelines. The purpose is to assure proper storage and administration of medications. Controlled substances may be transferred during the medication pass to the locked cabinet section within the medication cart. Once the medication pass is completed, the controlled substance will be transferred back to the double-locked cabinet in the medication room. During review of the 3rd floor Oceanside…
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
$81,387 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $81,387 — penalty dated 2025-10-31
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CASSENA CARE — 13 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 4.2 | -2.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 3.6 | -2.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRUNNER, JOSEPH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 38% | since 07/06/2012 |
| FRIEDMAN, LEOPOLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 25% | since 07/06/2012 |
| MELNICKE, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 38% | since 07/06/2012 |
| SKUTZKA, ALEXANDER | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 04/08/2014 |
| DEROSA, ANTHONY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/06/2012 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 5 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.
This home reported $8.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 28% 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
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335387. 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.