Henry J. Carter Skilled Nursing Facility
1752 Park Avenue, Manhattan, NY 10035 · Government - City · 164 certified beds · (646) 686-0000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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 recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $17,345 in federal fines (most recent 2025-08-20)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 3 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 | 7.5% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.2% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 2.7% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.2% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 0.0% | 12.5% | 16.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 2.6% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.4% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 18.7% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 3.8% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.3% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 74.1% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.6% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.2% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.53 | 1.70 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.74 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
37.6% 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 36 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.04 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 2% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 37.6%CMS range 20.5–55.1 | 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 | 10.3%CMS range 6.7–14.5 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 46.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims 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 | 10.0% | 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 | 9.1%CMS range 6.0–14.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.36 | 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 164 beds and averages 158.5 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 6.09 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 2.27 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.16 is at or above 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 5.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.53 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 2.43 to 1.88 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-08-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00380551), the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and in accordance with the residents' goals and preferences. This was evident for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) sampled for respiratory care and treatment. Specifically, on [DATE] at 4:01 PM, Resident #1 returned from the certified dialysis unit located within the facility. Resident #1 was on a portable ventilator accompanied by Escort #1 and Respiratory Therapist #1. Upon return to Resident #1's room Respiratory Therapist #1 disconnected the portable ventilator and connected Resident #1 to the bedside ventilator but did not take the bedside ventilator off standby mode or check that Resident #1 was being ventilated (receiving oxygen). Additionally,…
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 · D2025-08-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00374171), the facility did not ensure that each resident received adequate supervision to prevent an elopement. This was evident for one (1) out of three (3) residents (Resident #2) sampled for elopement. Specifically, a nursing note, by Registered Nurse #1, dated 03/02/2025 at 6:14 PM documented that Resident #2's adult child visited at around 3:00 PM and reported Resident #2 was not in their room. The Hospital Police and staff searched the building and Resident #2 was not found. The facility video surveillance footage dated 03/02/2025 showed Resident #2, who had a tracheostomy tube and was at high risk for elopement, exited the facility at 1:24 PM undetected by staff. The Certified Nursing Assistant Task sheet for March 2025 showed, under purposeful rounding conducted every two (2) hours, Resident #2 was last monitored at 6:00 AM on 03/02/2025 as indicated by staff's initial. An addendum on the Intake Information sheet dated…
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 · E2024-01-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from [DATE] to [DATE], the facility did not ensure drugs were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. This was evident for 2 (2nd Floor and 3rd Floor) of 5 units observed for medication storage. Specifically, 1) the 3rd Floor medication cart contained undated eye drops, and 2) the 2nd Floor medication cart contained an unlabeled inhaler. The findings are: The facility policy titled Safe Medication Use dated [DATE] documented licensed nurses verify medications have not expired. The undated facility policy titled Long Term Care Pharmacy documented store Brinzolamide/Timolol at room temperature and discard after 4 weeks of opening. Dorzolamide/Timolol must be used within 15 days of opening. 1) On [DATE] at 09:49 AM, the 3rd Floor medication cart was observed with opened bottles of Carboxymethylcell 0.5% eye drops without an open or discard date, Brimonidine 0.15 % without an open or discard…
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 · D2024-01-23 · tag F0572 — isolatedGive residents a notice of rights, rules, services and charges.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 1/16/2024 to 1/23/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident received notice of their rights and services upon admission. This was evident for 1 (Resident #56) of 31 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #56 was not provided with an admission Agreement explaining their rights as a resident and services provided by the facility upon admission. The findings are: The facility policy titled Coordinated and Formal Resolution of Resident Complaints and Grievances dated 10/7/2021 documented the admission packet was provided to all residents. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of alcohol dependence and traumatic subdural hemorrhage. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #56 was cognitively intact. On 1/16/2024 at 12:20 PM, Resident #56 was interviewed and stated they were not told of the policies and procedures upon admission to the facility.…
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 · D2024-01-23 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 1/16/2024 to 1/23/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident's right to voice care and treatment grievances with a prompt effort to resolve grievances. This was evident for 1 (Resident #56) of 31 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #56's missing property grievance was not investigated. The findings are: The facility policy titled Coordinated and Formal Resolution of Complaints and Grievances dated 10/7/2021 documented a resident's right to voice grievances regarding lost clothing was supported and the facility actively seeks a resolution, keeping the resident appropriately apprised of its progress. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of alcohol dependence and traumatic subdural hemorrhage. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #56 was cognitively intact. On 1/16/2024 at 12:20 PM, Resident #56 was interviewed and stated they were admitted…
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 · D2024-01-23 · 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, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 1/16/2024 to 1/23/2023, the facility did not ensure that a person-centered comprehensive care plan addressing a resident's needs was developed and implemented. This was evident for 1 (Resident #101) of 2 residents reviewed for Advance Directives out of 31 total sampled residents. Specifically, a comprehensive care plan related to Advance Directive status was not developed and implemented for Resident #101. The findings are: The facility policy titled Interdisciplinary Care Plan Meeting dated 12/01/2022 documented comprehensive person-centered care plans were developed utilizing an interdisciplinary approach. Resident #101 had diagnoses of chronic respiratory failure and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #101 was cognitively intact and did not document Resident #101 had Advance Directives. Medical Doctor Orders dated 1/22/2024 documented Resident #101 was a full…
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 · D2024-01-23 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 01/16/2024 to 01/23/2024, the facility did not ensure records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation. This was evident for 1 (2nd Floor) of 5 units observed for medication storage. Specifically, the 2nd Floor Narcotics Sheet did not document an initial count of oxycodone for Resident #103. The findings are: The facility policy titled Safe Medication Use dated 8/25/2023 documented the unit nurse will store controlled medications in a doubled-locked cabinet inside the unit medication room and initiate a Narcotics Sheet that comes with that medication. On 01/18/2024 at 12:21 PM, the 2nd Floor medication room was observed with 3 blister packs of oxycodone 10mg prescribed to Resident #103. The Narcotics Sheet with the blister packs did not document an initial count of oxycodone 10 mg received by the unit nurse. On 01/18/2024 at 12:37 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse #1 who stated the initial…
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 · D2024-01-23 · 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 observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 01/16/2024 to 01/23/2024, the facility did not ensure infection control practices and procedures were maintained. This was evident for 1 (Resident #29) of 31 total sampled residents. Specifically, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 and a Patient Care Technician #1 did not perform hand hygiene during wound care for Resident #29. The findings are: The facility policy titled Wound Care: Clean Dressing Technique dated 5/252023 documented hand hygiene must be performed and clean gloves must be worn as required during the procedure. On 01/17/2024 at 10:38 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 was observed performing a wound care dressing change on Resident #29's right foot. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 donned gloves, removed Resident #29's soiled dressing from their right foot, cleansed the wound with normal saline, applied ointment to the wound, and used both hands to cover the wound with sterile gauze and a foam dressing. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 was not observed performing hand hygiene or…
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 · D2023-12-29 · 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 interviews and record review during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00324386), the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, exploitation, and mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source are thoroughly investigated. This was evident in 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, on 09/11/23, Resident #1 was noted with discoloration on the left eye. There was no documented evidence that the facility investigated the alleged injury of unknown source. The findings are: The facility policy titled Incident Reporting within the Nursing Facility with the Abuse Prohibition Protocol dated 11/09/22 stated that allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, misappropriation of property, quality of care concern and/or suspicion of a crime will be investigated promptly with appropriate follow up action taken. The policy stated that daily assessment of residents is conducted to observe for signs and…
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.
- 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
$17,345 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $17,345 — penalty dated 2025-08-20
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 NEW YORK CITY HEALTH + HOSPITALS — 5 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 | 3 of 5 | 4.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 4.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.6★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CALAMIA, VINCENT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/13/2012 |
| HERNANDEZ-PINERO, SALLY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| KATZ, MITCHELL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/08/2018 |
| KAWATRA, ANITA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| LOWE, BARBARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/18/2015 |
| LUONG, KHOI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/27/2017 |
| MARTHONE, PATRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/20/2021 |
| PAGAN, JOSE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| WANG, FREDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| WASOW-PARK, MOLLY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/06/2023 |
| WILLIAMS-ISOM, ANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| ULBERG, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/21/2018 |
| NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2017 |
| ANBALAGAN, PAPPATHI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/04/2025 |
| BASQUEZ, FLORENCIO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/02/2018 |
| DRYDEN, JASON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/05/2022 |
| KARLIN, MARJORY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| KHUNDKAR, KITY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/20/2019 |
| LONG, FLOYD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/04/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner 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.
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 335092. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-01, 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.