Little Neck Care Center
260 19 Nassau Boulevard, Little Neck, NY 11362 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (718) 423-6400 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (17% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0610), cited May 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609) — 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 (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- 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 17% 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) | 4 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 | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.9% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.7% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 1.7% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.2% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.9% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.8% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.6% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.3% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.0% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.8% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.8% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.4% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.31 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.26 | 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.
50.6% 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 242 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 83.9% 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 137 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 0.74 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 93% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 34% 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 | 50.6%CMS range 41.5–59.1 | 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 | 9.0%CMS range 5.9–12.2 | 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 | 83.9% | 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 | 78.8% | 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 | 81.0% | 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 | 98.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 99.2% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.1% | 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 | 7.5%CMS range 5.2–11.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.59 | 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 120 beds and averages 103.1 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 17 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 3.58 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.78 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.26 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 3.34 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.68 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 17% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
17 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-05-18 · 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 survey, the facility failed to ensure residents' safety after an allegation of abuse was made and the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation of the alleged violation. This was evident for one of five residents (Resident #1) reviewed and sampled for risk of abuse. Specifically, on 05/02/2026 between 5:30 AM to 5:45 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 reported to Licensed Practical Nurse #1 that in the presence of Certified Nursing Assistant #2, Resident #1 assaulted them during care. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 went to Resident #1's room and Resident #1 told Licensed Practical Nurse #1 they were beaten up. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated during an interview that Certified Nursing Assistant #2 reported that Resident #1 assaulted Certified Nursing Assistant #1 and in retaliation, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 hit Resident #1 and threw a trash can toward the resident. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 left the unit to report the incident to Registered Nurse Supervisor #1. However, Licensed Practical Nurse #1…
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 before2026-06-01 · 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 interviews and record review, the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately to the New York State Department of Health no later than 2 hours after the alleged occurrence. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 9) of 3 residents reviewed for Abuse out of 28 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident # 9 had an allegation of injury of unknown origin that was not reported in a timely manner. The findings are:The facility policy titled, Abuse Prevention and Reporting, dated effective 07/01/2006 and last reviewed 05/01/2026, documented the facility must report alleged violations related to mistreatment, exploitation, neglect, or abuse including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property and report the results of all investigations to all the proper authorities within prescribed timeframes. Alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation mistreatment are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation 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 · Dcited before2026-06-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure that it established and maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. This was identified specifically, when Licensed Practical Nurse #1 did not follow the manufacturer's instructions and did not use the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved disinfectant to clean and disinfect the shared blood glucose meter. The findings are:The facility's policy titled, Blood Glucose-Capillary (Finger Sticks) dated 10/2025, documented to use approved EPA registered disinfectant for cleaning of sampling device. Always ensure that blood glucose meters intended for reuse are cleaned and disinfected between resident uses and clean and disinfect Glucometer with Germicidal Wipes.During a medication administration observation on 05/28/2026 at 3:51PM Licensed Practical Nurse #1 was observed performing a fingerstick for Resident #121. The glucometer…
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 · D2024-08-28 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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 and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 8/21/24 to 8/28/24, the facility did not ensure that a resident was cared for in a manner that maintained or enhanced dignity. This was evident for 1 (Resident #3) of 4 residents reviewed for Catheter out of a sample of 25 residents. Specifically, Resident #3's Foley catheter bag and tubing were not covered with a privacy bag. The findings are: The facility policy titled Care of the Resident with a Foley Catheter last reviewed 1/2024 documented that a drainage bag cover should be utilized for privacy. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which include Multiple Sclerosis, Neuromuscular Dysfunction of Bladder and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Chronic kidney Disease. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented that Resident #3 had moderate cognitive impairment, required extensive assistance of 2 staff members for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene,…
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 before2024-08-28 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 08/21/2024 to 08/28/2024, the facility did not ensure that the resident and their representative were provided with a summary of the baseline care plan. This was evident for 1 (Resident #78) of 2 residents reviewed for Care Planning out of 25 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #78 was not provided a written summary of their baseline care plan. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Baseline Care Plan with a revised date of 01/07/2024 states that the resident or their representative will be provided a summary of the baseline care plan. Resident #78 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Coronary Artery Disease, Arthritis, and Malnutrition. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented that Resident #78 was severely cognitively impaired and both resident and family participated in assessment and goal setting. On 08/26/24 at 04:25 PM, Resident #78's spouse 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 · D2024-08-28 · 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 observations, record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 08/21/2024 to 08/28/2024, the facility did not ensure that a person-centered Comprehensive Care Plan was developed and implemented to meet the resident's goal, and address the resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. This is evident for 1 (Resident #75) of 2 residents reviewed for Urinary Catheter out of 25 sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #75 was receiving Oxygen therapy, and a comprehensive care plan was not created. The findings include: The facility's policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan/Baseline Care Plan, review date 1/2024, documented that the facility must develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, to include resident's problems, strengths, and needs. An individual Comprehensive Care Plan will be developed for each problem, will be initiated immediately upon admission and appropriate care plans will be in place within 48 hours 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 · D2024-08-28 · 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 interview conducted during the Recertification survey from 08/21/2024 to 08/28/2024, the facility did not ensure that 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 # 3) of 4 residents reviewed for Urinary Catheter from a sample of 25 residents. Specifically, Resident #3, a resident with left hand weakness and left wrist drop was observed on more than one occasion without a left-hand splint in place as ordered. The findings are: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which include Multiple Sclerosis, and Contracture of Muscle. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #3 had moderate cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living activities. required extensive assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. The Minimum Data…
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 · D2024-08-28 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey between 08/21/2024 and 08/28/2024, the facility did not ensure that Nurse Staffing Information was posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. Specifically, the posting of staffing did not indicate the actual hours worked by staff or the resident census and was posted by the employee time clock, located in a corner at the entrance to the kitchen, that was not readily accessible to all residents and visitors. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Daily Staffing dated 01/2024 documented that the Nursing Staffing Coordinator will prepare and provide a monthly schedule of regular staff members. Such schedule shall be posted by the facility time clock. A copy shall be maintained in the Nursing Office, either electronically or on paper. During multiple observations made between 08/21/2024 and 08/27/2024, there was no Nurse Staffing Information observed posted on daily basis in a prominent place. On 08/27/2024 at 09:44 AM, the Staff Development…
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 before2024-08-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification survey between 08/21/2024 and 08/28/2024, the facility did not ensure infection control practices and procedures were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, resident's oxygen tubing was not changed and dated as per protocol. This was evident for 2 (Residents #9 and #29) of 2 residents reviewed for Respiratory Therapy out of 25 sampled residents. The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure titled Oxygen Therapy Administration dated 01/2024, documented in section Infection Control that cannulas, facemask, and tubing are to be changed weekly and as needed), and Humidifier bottles are changed when the level of distilled water reaches the low-level indicator. 1.Resident #9 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Congestive Heart Failure, Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary…
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 before2024-08-28 · 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 record review and staff interview during the Recertification/Complaint survey (NY00324573) conducted between 08/21/2024 and 08/28/2024, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately to the New York State Department of Health, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made. This was evident for 1 (Resident #83) of 2 residents reviewed for Abuse out of 25 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility did not report 1). an allegation of Abuse, and 2). an injury of unknown origin for Resident #83 to the New York State Department of Health within 2 hours. The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure titled Abuse Prevention and Reporting dated 07/2006, reviewed 03/2024 documented that all alleged violations of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property must be reported immediately but not later than 2 hours - if the alleged violation involves abuse or results…
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 · F2022-10-18 · 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 observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 10/12/2022 to 10/18/2022, the facility did not ensure safe food storage was practiced. This was evident during the kitchen observation. Specifically, expired liquid nutritional supplements, expired thickened juice and expired thickened water were observed in the kitchen's Emergency Food Storage Room (EMSR). The findings are: The facility policy titled Disaster/Plan for Food Service effective 01/2021 documented the residents will be supplies with adequate and appropriate diets, adhering as close to the prescribed medical nutritional regimen as possible. It is the policy of this facility to keep a three-day supply of food. On 10/14/2022 at 12:26 PM -12:39 PM during the tour of the EMSR observed there was an unopened box of 24/4-ounce containers of Hormel Thick and easy clear hydrolyte thickened water with a use by date of 10/11/2022. An unopened box of 24/4 ounce cartons of Hormel thick and easy thickened apple juice with use by date of 9/15/2022 and an unopened box of 24/8 ounce…
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 6 citations
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-18 · 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 observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 10/12/22 to 10/18/22, the facility did not ensure a resident remained free from physical restraints. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 25) out of 2 residents reviewed for Restraints. Specifically, Resident # 25 was observed on several occasions lying in bed with 2 pillows placed underneath the fitted sheet on each side of the resident, bordering the length of the body to prevent Resident # 25 from getting out bed. The findings are: The facility policy titled Restraints / Siderail - Bed System with no effective date and the last review date 4/29/22 documented Physical restraints are defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached to or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot easily remove which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. It also documented that physical restraint will only be utilized after less restrictive…
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 · D2022-10-18 · 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 observation, record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Complaint survey (NY00292535), the facility did not ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment accurately reflected the resident's status. This was evident for 2 of 28 sampled residents (Resident #29 and Resident #305). Specifically, 1) Resident #29's use of anticoagulant and antidepressant medication were not documented on the MDS. 2) Resident #305's insulin injections were not documented on the MDS. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 revised 3/18/22 documented as mandated by OBRA, facility will complete, at a minimum and at regular intervals, a comprehensive, standardized assessment of each resident's functional capacity and needs. The results of the assessment, which must accurately reflect the resident's status and needs, will be used to develop, review, and revise each resident's comprehensive plan of care. 1). Resident #29 was admitted to the facility with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-10-18 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews conducted during a Recertification/Complaint Survey from 10/12/2022 to 10/18/2022, the facility did not ensure that the resident and their representative were provided with a written summary of the baseline care plan. This was evident for 1 (Resident #203) of 3 residents reviewed for Care Plan out of 28 sampled residents. The findings are: The facility policy titled Baseline Care Plan (BCP) with review/updates dates 11/10/17, 4/16/19 documented that the Baseline Care Plan shall be given to the resident/resident representative within 48hrs of admission by the RN Supervisor or designee and signature shall be obtained by receiving party. It also documented that if the receiving party is not able to sign or prefers not to, documentation shall be obtained as to the circumstances. It further documented that the facility shall make every effort to provide documents to resident/resident's representative within 48hrs of admission including but not limited to certified mail,…
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 · D2022-10-18 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 10/12/22 to 10/18/22, the facility did not ensure a resident was offered the opportunity to participate in the development of their comprehensive care plan (CCP). This was evident for 1 (Resident #20) of 2 residents reviewed for care plan meeting (CPM). Specifically, Resident #20 was not invited to participate in quarterly CPMs. The findings are: The facility policy titled Care Plans - Comprehensive Person-Centered dated 05/01/2022 documented residents have the right to participate in the development and implementation their care plan. Resident #20 had diagnoses of coronary artery disease (CAD) and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #20 was moderately cognitively impaired. On 10/12/22 at 10:02 AM, Resident #20 was interviewed and stated they are not invited to participate in their CPM with the interdisciplinary team. There was no documented evidence Resident #20 or their representative…
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 · D2022-10-18 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 conducted during the Recertification and Complaint survey (NY00292455) from 10/12/22 to 10/18/22, the facility did not ensure that residents are provided pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident. This was evident for 1 (Unit 3) of the 3 units medication storage rooms and 1 (Resident #257) of 1 resident(s) reviewed for pain management out of 28 sampled residents. Specifically, 1) the facility did not ensure that expired medications were removed and discarded according to the manufacturer's recommendation, and 2) the facility did not ensure Trulance and Clozapine were dispensed to Resident #257 as ordered upon admission. The findings are: The facility Policy on Medication Storage dated 08/21/2021 documented: .Discontinued, contaminated, expired, or deteriorated medications are removed from the medication/treatment…
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 before2019-11-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (NY00239415), the facility did not ensure that infection control practices were maintained during a wound dressing change. Specifically, the nurse conducted wound care on a resident's right ischium wound and removed the dressings from the sacral and left ischium wounds without cleaning the resident's soiled diaper first. After dressing the right ischium, the nurse covered the open sacral and left ischium wounds with the soiled diaper to wait for the resident to be cleaned and changed. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcer (Resident #190). The finding is: The facility's Policy and Procedure entitled Prevention of Pressure Ulcer/Wound Management was reviewed. It documents under the heading: Policy: It is the policy of Little Neck Care Center to assist each resident with attaining and maintaining the individuals' highest practicable well-being through appropriate assessment and care 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to OPTIMA CARE — 8 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 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 7 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MENDEL, BORIS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/24/2018 |
| ROVT, ALEXANDER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 90% | since 01/24/2018 |
| MENDEL, ERIC | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/24/2018 |
| AVINARI, ILANA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/24/2018 |
| STAIANO, STEVE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/21/2022 |
| YOUNESI, PEYMAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/15/2025 |
| BORIS MENDEL FAMILY 2012 IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/23/2025 |
| EMM HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/24/2018 |
| RM HOLDINGS LITTLE NECK, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/24/2018 |
| ROVT 2011 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/23/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $3.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% 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 335434. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-28, 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.