Dry Harbor Nursing Home
61 35 Dry Harbor Road, Middle Village, NY 11379 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 360 certified beds · (718) 565-4200 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- about 29% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 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 | 10.7% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.6% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.9% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.8% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.7% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.7% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.2% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.4% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.9% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 11.9% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.0% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.02 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.55 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
§ 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.
57.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 481 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 36.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 383 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 0.44 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 74% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | 57.7%CMS range 52.8–61.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 8.6–13.2 | 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 | 36.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 31.1% | 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 | 32.9% | 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 | 88.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.1% | 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 | 97.8% | 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 | 0.8% | 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 | 2.6% | 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 | 8.5%CMS range 6.4–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.66 | 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 360 beds and averages 353.8 residents a day — about 98% 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 3.88 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.97 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.62 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 3.55 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.01 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.04 to 0.78 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% 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.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-22 · 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 staff interview and record review during the Recertification Survey conducted from 04/15/2025 to 04/22/2025, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and the State Survey Agency in accordance with State law through established procedures. This was evident in 1 (Resident #270) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents out of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, on 01/28/2025, Resident #270 was noted with discoloration and complaint of pain to the left hip. X-ray report showed acute fracture of the left hip. The source of the injury was not observed by any person and was not explained by the resident. This injury of unknown source was not reported to the New York State Department of Health.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-22 · 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
Based on record review and interview during the Recertification Survey conducted from 04/15/2025 to 04/22/2025 the facility did not ensure that a comprehensive person-centered care plan was developed and implemented for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs. This was evident in 1 (Resident #277) of 4 residents investigated for Care Planning out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, a care plan to address Osteoporosis was not developed for Resident #277. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Minimum Data Set and Care Plan Creation and Maintenance revised in 11/2024 documented that the care plan will be updated at least quarterly and with any change or new condition. The care plan will always reflect the resident's current status. Resident #277 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus and Muscle Weakness. The physician's progress note dated 01/20/2025 documented that Resident #277 had underlying osteoporosis and was at a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-22 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey conducted from 04/15/2025 to 04/22/2025, the facility did not ensure that services provided or aranged by the facility met professional standards of quality. This was evident in 1 (Resident #27) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 failed to administer Resident #27's medications as per physician's order, left the medications on resident's overbed table, and documented that the medications were administered in the Medication Administration Record. Cross reference: F-tag 755 Pharmacy Svcs/Procedures/Pharmacist/ Records The findings include: The facility's policy titled Administration of Medication with a last revised date of 12/2024 documented that the nurse cannot leave the medications at bedside without a self-medication assessment and approval. Resident #27 had diagnoses that included Anemia, Renal Insufficiency, and Non-Alzheimer's…
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 · D2025-04-22 · 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 interviews during the Recertification Survey conducted from 04/15/2025 to 04/22/2025, the facility did not ensure that pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate dispensing and administering of all drugs and biologicals, were provided to meet the needs of each resident. This was evident in 1 (Resident #27) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility did not ensure accurate administration of Resident #27's medications. Medications were left on the overbed table. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Administration of Medication with a last revised date of 12/2024 documented that the nurse cannot leave the medications at bedside without a self-medication assessment and approval. Medication may be administered in accordance with the cautionary statements and recommendations of the pharmacist. Medication Pass can begin 1 hour before or 1 hour after the administration…
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 · D2025-01-27 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
F583 s/s D Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00358147), the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with respect and dignity including the right to privacy and confidentiality. This was evident in one out of three residents (Resident #4) sampled. Specifically, on 10/22/2024 (time not specified), Certified Nursing Assistant #3 did not obtain consent to record or post Resident #4 on their social media account. On 10/22/2024, Certified Nursing Assistant # 4 reported to Risk Manager #2 that they saw a post on Certified Nursing Assistant #3's Tik Tok social media account with Resident #4. The facility's investigation dated 10/22/2024, included a statement from Certified Nursing Assistant #3 documented they posted Resident #4 on their social media account. This resulted in Past Noncompliance with no potential harm. The findings include: The facility's Prevention of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation policy and procedure revised 09/2023, documented the facility shall prevent any mistreatment, abuse, 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 · E2023-08-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and record review during the recertification survey of 8/24/23 - 8/31/23, the facility failed to distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was evident for 2 (unit 7 and 10) of 9 units observed during the Dining facility task. Specifically, staff failed to clean the residents' hands at the time of meal service and handled straws and drinking cups in a method that does not follow proper sanitation and food handling practices to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness. The findings are: A facility policy and procedure titled Feeding Residents revised 1/23, documented it is the policy of the facility that if a resident is unable to feed themselves, they will be assisted with feeding. Equipment needed included hand sanitizing wipes. The policy further documented staff should provide hand wipes for hand hygiene and assist residents with wiping their hands if necessary. 1) On 8/24/23 at 12:09 PM, lunch meal service was observed in the 7th floor day room. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 was observed opening…
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 before2023-08-31 · 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 conducted during the Recertification and Complaint Survey from 08/24/2023 to 08/31/2023, the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), but not later than 2 hours after the alleged occurrence. This was evident for 2 (Resident # 292 and #235) of 2 residents reviewed for Abuse out of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Resident # 292 had an unwitnessed fall with injury that was not reported to NYSDOH within two hours of occurrence 2) Resident # 235 (NY00305970 ) had an injury of unknown origin, swelling of the face and upper lip bruises, that were not reported to NYSDOH within two hours. The findings are: The facility policy titled Abuse Prevention dated 5/8/2023 documents occurrence must be reported immediately to Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON) / Designee and Department of Health (DOH), but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events…
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 before2023-08-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, during the recertification survey of 8/24/23 - 8/31/23, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. Specifically, a care plan was not developed and implemented to address the care needs of a resident receiving comfort measures. This was evident for 1 (#253) of 5 residents reviewed for Nutrition. The findings are: A facility policy and procedure titled Interdisciplinary Care Plan last revised 3/07, documented that an Interdisciplinary care plan for each resident will be developed to include measurable objectives and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the assessment. The interdisciplinary care plan is initiated within 7 days (working days) after completion of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-31 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that medication and biologicals were labeled properly with the open date based on professional standards of practice. This was evident for 1 of 9 units reviewed for Medication Storage (Unit 8). Specifically, six open insulin flex pens were not labeled with the open and expiration date. The findings are: On 08/25/2023 at 10:21 AM, an observation of 1 medication cart on the 8th floor was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1). Six of 7 open insulin flex pens were not labeled with open and/or expiration dates. On 08/25/23 at 11:19 AM, an interview was conducted with LPN #1 who stated insulin must be labeled with the open and expiration date upon opening. Insulin should be discarded after 28 days. On 8/25/2023 at 11:25 AM, an interview was conducted with RN unit manager #2 who stated insulin should be labeled and dated upon opening. 415.18(d)
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-06-29 · 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
Based on observation and staff interview during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that medications and biologicals drugs were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Specifically, 1). the facility did not ensure that medications were properly labeled with opening date and resident name on the vial, and 2). medication refrigerators were not maintained within acceptable ranges and daily checks were not recorded consistently. This were observed during the Medication Storage and Labeling task on 4 of 10 units. (Units 3, 8, 9 and 10) The findings are: The facility's Policy and Procedure titled Storage and Expiration of Medication, Biologicals, Syringes and Needles dated 4/2019, documented staff should record the date opened on the medication container when the medication has a shortened expiration date once opened. Staff should destroy and reorder medications, and biologicals with soiled, illegible, worn, makeshift, incomplete damaged or missing labels. Staff must ensure that medication and biologicals are…
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 · D2021-06-29 · tag F0568 — isolatedProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification survey and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure individual resident financial records were made available to resident and resident representatives through quarterly statements. Specifically, quarterly statements were not provided in writing to residents and/or resident representatives within 30 days after the end of the quarter and upon request. This is evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Personal Funds out of a resident sample of 39 residents. (Resident #107) The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Resident Rights: Resident Personal Funds dated May 2020 documented that Dry Harbor maintains a system that assures a full and complete and separate accounting, according to generally accepted accounting principles, of each resident's personal funds entrusted to the facility on the resident's behalf. The individual financial records are available to the resident through quarterly statements and upon request.…
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 · D2021-06-29 · 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 staff interviews and record review conducted during a Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that a portion of the Minimum Data Assessment (MDS) accurately reflected the resident's status. Specifically, diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder and Depression were not captured on the MDS. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications out of total sample of 39 residents (Resident # 189). The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Minimum Date Set (MDS) -Version 3.0 revised 1/21 documented the MDS 3.0 Resident Assessment will be completed by the Interdisciplinary Team. Each discipline will be responsible for completion of their designated sections as follows: Nursing Sections (RN MDS Assessors) I and all disciplines that make entries on the MDS 3.0 are responsible to sign and date their assigned sections. This signature must include title. The signature indicates that the section was reviewed and attests to the accuracy of the items. Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-06-29 · 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 interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that a comprehensive person-centered care plan consistent with the resident rights that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs was developed and implemented. Specifically, a care plan was not developed to address the use of anticoagulant medication. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications out of a sample of 39 residents (Resident # 189). The findings are: The undated facility policy and procedure titled Interdisciplinary Care Plan documented it is the policy of this facility that a Interdisciplinary Care Plan for each resident will be developed to include measurable objectives and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The triggered RAPs are utilized in the development of care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-06-29 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident's person-centered, comprehensive care plans (CCP) were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments. Specifically, three (3) care plans were not reviewed or revised after the quarterly assessment. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medication out of a sample of 39 residents (Resident #67). The findings are: The facility policy Interdisciplinary Care Plan revised 12/18 documented each discipline is responsible to refer to Interdisciplinary Care Plan and update CCP by documenting all pertinent information in the evaluation section of CCP Form every 90 days or when quarterly assessment review, significant change and annual is due and as necessary. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which include Type II Diabetes without…
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 · D2021-06-29 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview during the Recertification survey and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that a resident with Intravenous (IV) Heplock line and a resident with a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line, inserted for antibiotic administration were provided with care and services to prevent infection on the catheter sites. This was evident for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for Infection/Transmission-Based Precautions out of a sample of 39 residents. (Resident #421 and Resident #1. The finding is: The facility policy on PICC line Dressing Change dated 01/2021 documented to prevent external infection of the peripheral or venous catheter; assess the dressing for accumulation of blood fluid or moisture beneath the dressing. PICC line dressing is every 7 days and PRN (as…
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 · D2021-06-29 · 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 and staff interviews during the Recertification survey and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure the infection control practices and procedures to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections were maintained. Specifically, residents' oxygen tubing was observed touching the floor on multiple occasions. This was evident for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for Oxygen out of a sample of 39 residents. (Resident #37 and Resident #68) The findings are: 1). Resident # 37 was admitted with diagnoses which include Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Renal Insufficiency, Dementia and Asthma. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment required limited assistance of one person with most activities of daily living and was receiving oxygen therapy. On 06/23/21 at 10:45 AM, 06/24/21 at 11:15 AM, and 06/25/21 10:30 AM, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STRASSER, JONATHAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/15/2009 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 2 rows in the source record cover these 1 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $17.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 29% 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.
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 335416. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-22, 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.