Woodland Pond At New Paltz
100 Woodland Pond Circle, New Paltz, NY 12561 · Non profit - Other · 40 certified beds · (845) 256-5910 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)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- the CMS record shows $13,099 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-20)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.7% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.9% | 5.8% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 6.2% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.5% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 7.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.2% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.4% | 13.2% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.9% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.3% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.7% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.6% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.3% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.24 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.33 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
34.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 92 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 84.8% 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 46 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 0.78 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 | 34.7%CMS range 25.9–43.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.0%CMS range 7.0–14.4 | 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 | 84.8% | 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 | 80.4% | 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 | 87.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 94.9% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.7% | 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 | 6.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.1%CMS range 4.1–12.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 40 beds and averages 37.2 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.37 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.21 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.72 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 4.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.59 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.42 to 0.69 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-04-24 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 abbreviated (NY00370838 and NY00371165) and recertification surveys from 4/21/2025-4/24/2025, the facility did not ensure sufficient nursing staff to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, 1). multiple residents and family members complained about long wait times after initiating the call bell, 2). Resident #28 had to wait 66 minutes on 2/1/2025 to receive incontinence care, 3) Resident Council attendees reported long wait times to receive assistance from staff for activity of daily living, and 4) Resident #6 was observed waiting an extended period of time for assistance with morning care due to staff inability to manage their assignment, refer to F677. The findings included: The policy titled Staffing documented provide adequate staffing to meet needed care and services for resident population. 1) The Call Bell Logs from October 2024-January…
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 · E2025-04-24 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 4/21/2025 to 4/24/2025, the facility did not ensure the resident's right to be notified of facility's grievance official and of their right to obtain a copy of their grievance decision in writing. This was evident for 7 (Resident #30, #15, #4, #12, #18, #9 and #7) Resident Council attendees out of 38 total residents. Specifically, Resident #30, #15, #4, #12, #18, #9, and Resident #7's Family Representative did not know the Grievance Official for the facility and were unaware of their right to receive written copy of grievance investigation decisions. The findings are: On 4/22/2025 at 11:10 AM, a Resident Council meeting was held with Resident #30, #15, #4, #12, #18, #9, and Resident #7's Family Representative in attendance. All attendees stated they were unaware of who held the title of Grievance Official for the facility, and they could receive a copy of their grievance investigation decision in writing. On 4/24/2025 at 12:13 PM, Resident #7's Health Care Agent was interviewed 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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00371165 and NY00370838) survey from 4/21/2025 to 4/24/2025, the facility did not ensure a resident unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene. This was evident for 2 (Resident #6 and #28) of 3 residents reviewed for activities of daily living. Specifically, 1) Resident #6 reported long wait times to receive assistance with incontinence care and personal hygiene, and 2) Resident #28 was dependent on assistance for activities of daily living and had to wait 66 minutes on 2/1/2025 to receive incontinence care. The findings are: The facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living dated 4/22/2025 documented resident activities of daily living performance skills would be assessed and a care plan would be completed. 1) Resident #6 had diagnoses of left femur fracture and altered mental status. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (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 before2025-04-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 interview conducted during the recertification survey from 4/21/25-4/24/25, the facility did not ensure food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, food items were not properly sealed and dated in the main kitchen walk in refrigerator, clean wet pots were stacked on a drying rack and dietary staff were observed without hair nets or beard covers while in the kitchen and while serving food in the dining room at the steam table. The findings include: The policy titled Hygiene Guidelines dated 6/1/2022 documented hair could be both a direct and indirect vehicle of contamination. A hair restraint keeps dislodged hair from ending up in the food. The policy titled Food Labeling and Dating Guidelines dated 12/6/2022 documented labeling requirements for used by date is required. During initial inspection of the kitchen conducted with the Food Service Director on 4/21/25 at 12:30 PM the following was observed: Dietary Staff #4 was not wearing a hair net or beard cover. - The walk-in refrigerator contained roasted…
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 before2025-04-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during a recertification survey from 4/21/2025 to 4/24/2025, the facility did not ensure infection control and prevention practices were maintained. Specifically, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 was observed administering medication to Residents #20 and #28 without performing hand hygiene during administration of eye drops and preparation of medications via gastrostomy tube. The findings include: The facility policy titled Medication Administration last reviewed on 11/2024 documented administer medications safely and appropriately by a licensed nurse to treat, prevent and alleviate symptoms of a disease. Always practice hand hygiene before and after the procedure. During interview and observation of medication administration on 04/23/2025 from 9:05 AM to 10:23 AM, on Unit S1 the following was noted: Licensed Practical Nurse #1 removed eyedrops from the medication cart, held the bottle with their left hand, read the name on the bottle and checked the expiration date. With their right hand holding the computer mouse, checked 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 · F2020-02-28 · tag F0837 — widespreadEstablish a governing body that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies for managing and operating the facility and appoints a properly licensed administrator responsible for managing the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey, it was determined that the governing body did not implement policies regarding the management and operation of the facility Water Management Plan. Specifically, the facility Legionella Sampling and Management Plan. The findings are: The facility did not adhere to the recommended water sampling points on the water sampling tests done in 3/2019 and 4/2019. Review of the Facility Water Analysis Result dated 03/21/2019 revealed that 3 out of 11 (27.27%) sample sites tested positive for Legionella. Review of the Facility Water Analysis Result dated 5/15/2019 revealed that 3 out of 11 (27.27%) sample sites tested positive for Legionella. The facility water supply has tested positive for Legionella in 7/2019 and 8/2019. Review of the Facility Water Analysis Result dated 8/15/2019 showed that 11 out of 16 (68.75%) sample sites tested positive for Legionella. Review of the Facility Water Analysis Result dated 9/17/2019 showed that 11 out of 16 (68.75%) sample sites tested positive for Legionella.…
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 · F2020-02-28 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview conducted during the recertification survey it could not be ensured that the facility maintained a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public. Specifically, (1) the facility did not have enough water sampling points on Legionella tests done in 3/2019 and 4/2019, (2) facility water supply has tested positive for Legionella on tests done in 7/2019 and 8/2019, and (3) no water sampling was done from 9/2019 to 2/28/2020. The findings are: 1. Review of the Facility Water Analysis Results dated 3/21/2019 and 5/15/2019 revealed that 11 sample sites were tested for Legionella. Additional testing sites (16) are indicated. Of note, 3 of 11 (27.27%) sample sites showed positive Legionella results. An interview was conducted on 2/26/2020 at 03:18PM with the Director of Facilities (DOF) where he stated that on 4/15/2019 after he attended a Department of Health (DOH) Legionella Training Session, he became aware that they should increase water sampling points in the facility from 11 to 16. 2. Review 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 · Ecited before2020-02-28 · 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, interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure foods were stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety to ensure prevention of foodborne illness. Specifically, opened and/or expired potentially hazardous foods (beef, chicken) were observed to be stored in a refrigerated unit. The findings are: The facility policy dated 1/30/2012 and titled, Ground Beef Policy documented that the shelf life of the product is 21 days from manufacturer's pack date. The facility policy dated 1/30/2012 and titled CVP (Cryovac: a way of vacuum sealing meat to keep harmful bacteria out and to extend the shelf life of the meat by keeping it fresh longer) Fresh Chicken Guidelines documented that the shelf life of product is 14 days from the manufacturer's pack date, frozen items must be used within 48 hours after thawing and that staff are to use opened packages of CVP chicken within 2-3 days of opening. 1. The initial tour of the kitchen was conducted on 2/25/2020 at 11:10AM with the Dining Director (DD)…
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 · D2020-02-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey, it could not be ensured that the facility stored medications under proper temperature controls. Specifically, the temperature in the facility medication refrigerator was noted to be below the manufacturers' specifications during two observations. The findings are: The facility policy on refrigerated medications revised on 2/2019 documented that the medication refrigerator temperatures are to be checked daily and documented. The temperature range should be between 36° Fahrenheit (F) and 41° F. If refrigerator temperatures are above or below this range, maintenance is to be notified immediately. An observation was conducted on 2/25/2020 at 12:58PM with LPN #2. The medication refrigerator was observed via a thermometer to be at a temperature of 32° F. An interview conducted with LPN#2 at that time revealed that the LPN did not know the correct temperature range for the refrigerator nor does she know what actions to take should the temperature be out of range. An observation was conducted on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-02-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that proper hand hygiene was performed during wound care for 2 of 2 residents (#2 and #13) reviewed for pressure ulcers. The findings are: Review of the Wound Dressing Policy revised on 11/2019 documented that after removing the old dressing, staff must remove gloves, wash hands and apply a clean pair of gloves. Review of an undated Competency Dressing Change Checklist documented that for both sterile and non-sterile dressing changes, staff must remove gloves and perform hand hygiene after removing old and / or soiled dressings. 1. Resident #2 was admitted with diagnoses that included Fracture of Right Acetabulum (socket of the hip bone), Alzheimer's Disease and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS; a resident assessment tool) dated 2/26/2020 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, denoting severe cognitive impairment. Section M 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.
“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
$13,099 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $3,011 — penalty dated 2024-02-20
- $6,836 — penalty dated 2024-01-30
- $3,252 — penalty dated 2023-12-26
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DROUIN, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2020 |
| GARRICK, LAUREL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2005 |
| SCHAIN, MARC | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2004 |
| GRAMOGLIA, MICHELLE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/01/2013 |
| BATTISTONI, CHRISTI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/01/2013 |
| DINAPOLI, ARTHUR | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/25/2025 |
| MEHL, PHILIP | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.
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.
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 335858. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-24, 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.