Upper East Side Rehabilitation And Nursing Center
211 East 79 St, New York City, NY 10075 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 499 certified beds · (212) 879-1600 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- about 22% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 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 held steady at 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 | 7.6% | 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 | 0.1% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 97.4% | 19.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.1% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 4.1% | 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 | 1.9% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.5% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.5% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.4% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.8% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.6% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.41 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.89 | 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.
64.7% 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 2,438 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 84.4% 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 1,002 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 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 83% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 64.7%CMS range 62.5–66.8 | 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 | 8.0%CMS range 6.8–9.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than 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 | 84.4% | 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 | 81.2% | 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 | 78.9% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 96.5% | 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 | 94.2% | 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 | 0.9% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 10.1%CMS range 8.5–11.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.42 | 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 499 beds and averages 459.8 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 39 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.32 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.26 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.06 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.98 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.45 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.34 to 1.06 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ddisputed · IDR2026-05-01 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review conducted, the facility did not have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated. This was evident for one (1) out of seven (7) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. Specifically, Resident #1 reported that on 08/20/2025 a middle-aged worker (later identified as Certified Nursing Assistant #1) came into their room to change their brief between the hours of 11:30 PM and midnight and punched them in the face. There was no documented evidence that the facility took measures to facilitate Resident #1's ability to identify the person alleged to have assaulted them.A review of the facility's investigation found that it dismissed the resident's claim that they were assaulted by Certified Nursing Assistant #1 because the facility found that Certified Nursing Assistant #2 (who did not fit the description given by the resident) provided incontinent care to Resident #1 on 08/21/2025 between 3:30 AM and 4:00 AM. A review of the unit assignment sheet revealed that Certified Nursing Assistant #1 was not assigned to provide care to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-23 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 1/16/2024 to 1/23/2024, the facility did not ensure a residen t's preferences were incorporated in developing care plan goals. This was evident for 1 (Resident #38) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #38 requested chocolate Ensure and was served with vanilla Ensure. The findings are: The facility policy titled Food Preferences dated 10/2021 documented the facility will provide individualized and person-centered care to its residents, ensuring dietary preferences of residents are respected, appropriately accommodated, and align with their nutritional needs. Resident #38 had diagnoses of malnutrition and dementia. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #38 was moderately cognitively impaired. On 1/17/2024 at 1:05PM, Resident #38 was interviewed and stated the facility provided vanilla Ensure supplements even though Resident #38 informed staff they prefer chocolate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-23 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 01/16/2024 to 01/23/2024, the facility did not ensure resident menus and dietary preferences were followed. This was evident for 1 (Resident #58) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #58 did not receive food items listed on the tray ticket during mealtime. The findings are: The facility policy titled Tray Ticket Identification and Labeling dated 4/2019 documented resident food trays are accurately identified with the meal, diet type, type of fluid, food likes and dislikes to ensure accurate food delivery and diet to residents. Resident #58 had diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and gastric esophageal reflux disease. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #58 was cognitively intact and required a therapeutic diet. On 1/22/2024 at 7:58 AM, Resident #58 was observed in bed with their breakfast tray in front of them. Resident #58 stated the food items on the tray did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-23 · 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, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey 1/16/2024 to 1/23/2024, the facility did not ensure food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food safety. This was evident for 1 (8th Floor) of 13 resident unit pantries. Specifically, the 8th Floor pantry refrigerator temperature was above 41 degrees Fahrenheit and contained undated and unlabeled melted ice cream in the freezer. The findings are: The facility policy titled Food Storage dated 5/2018 documented refrigeration temperatures are to be maintained at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less. The facility policy titled Pantry Refrigeration Cleaning dated 11/2017 documented the pantry refrigerator will be cleaned, temperatures monitored, and documentation maintained to ensure optimal conditions for refrigerated items. On 1/19/2024 at 4:10 PM, the 8th Floor pantry refrigerator was observed in the presence of Registered Nurse #1. The internal temperature of the refrigerator was 55 degrees Fahrenheit. Undated and unlabeled containers of melted ice cream were in the freezer…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-23 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00294833) survey from 1/16/2024 to 1/23/2024, the facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to keep the facility free from pests and rodents. This was evident in 1 (8th Floor) of 13 resident units. Specifically, a live roach was sighted in the 8th Floor pantry refrigerator. The findings are: The facility policy titled Pest Control dated 1/2018 documented an integrated pest control program was established and maintained. On 1/19/2024 at 4:10 PM, a roach approximately 1-inch long was observed running crawling out of the 8th Floor pantry refrigerator as the door was opened. The roach ran into a corner of the pantry and hid. The Pest Control Service Inspection Report dated 5/26/2023 documented roach gel was used to treat the kitchen, baseboards and interior. On 8/17/2023, the exterminator documented the 11th Floor had multiple cockroaches in resident rooms that were caught on glue boards. Spot application of roach gel was done and glue boards were replaced 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 · D2021-08-30 · 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 interview and record review conducted during a recertification (HT7E11) and abbreviated survey (NY00269377) completed on 8/31/2021, the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving abuse immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, to the State Survey Agency. Specifically, the facility did not report allegations of resident-to-resident abuse to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) within 2 hours. This was evident for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Abuse (Resident #26 and Resident #415). The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Accident reporting and investigation-NY effective 11/2016 documented the nurse supervisor will inform the Director of Nursing (DON)/Administrator of any allegation of abuse/neglect or serious incidents. Summarize and document the resident account of the incident in the progress notes, appropriate section of the accident report and investigation form unless the resident objects or is unable to provide such information as 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 · D2021-08-30 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that services and treatments were provided to prevent further decrease in ROM or mobility. Specifically, carrot splints and heel boots were not applied as ordered. This was evident for 1 out of 1 residents reviewed for Position and Mobility out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident #59). The finding is: The policy titled Application and Management of Splint/Brace/Immobilizer dated 11/17 documented to provide the patient/resident with pressure relieving devices on the bed and in the chair. Nursing staff is responsible to follow the scheduled time that devices are to be worn. Resident #59 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Hemiplegia, unspecified affecting Right Dominant side, and Cerebral Infraction, unspecified. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] and Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] documented the resident had severely impaired cognition. The resident was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-08-30 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolatedProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey (NY00277772), the facility did not ensure that a resident received medically-related social services to attain or maintain their highest practicable Psysical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, a resident hospitalized for Psoriasis and discharged with a pre-scheduled follow-up dermatology appointment was not assisted with transportation to attend the appointment. This was evident for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for Quality of Care (Resident #341). The finding is: Resident #341 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which include Psoriasis, Diabetes Mellitus without complications, and Hypertension. The admission Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] and Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact. No skin issues were documented in the MDS. On 08/23/21 at 03:19 PM, the complainant was interviewed and stated being the POA (Power of Attorney and 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 · D2021-08-30 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure expired medications were removed from the current medication supply. Specifically, 2 bags of Dextrose solution, a vial of Piperacillin, and a vial of Tazobactam were observed in the medication storage past the expiration date. This was evident on 1 of 7 units reviewed for Medication Storage (Unit 4). The findings are: The form titled Environmental Rounds Audits- Medication Storage/Handling dated 8/30/21 documented no that expired or discontinued medications are present in the Medication Room/Carts section of the form. On 08/30/21 at 11:24 AM, an observation of the medication storage room on the 4th floor was conducted with the Registered Nurse (RN #1). Lactated Ringer's and 5% Dextrose Injection USP 1000 ml (milliliter) bags (2 bags) was observed with the manufacturer's expiration date of 6/21. A vial of Piperacillin and Tazobactam 3.375 gram per vial was observed with the manufacturer's expiration date of 4/2021. On 8/30/21 at 11:58 AM an interview was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-03-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews and interviews during the re-certification survey, the facility did not maintain infection control practices to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, one resident with a Foley Catheter drainage bag and tubing were observed touching the floor and the floor mat in the resident's room. This was observed on two separate occasions on the same day. (Resident #76) The findings are: The facility policy titled, Urinary Catheter Care dated 3/2016 documents It is the policy of the facility that following the insertion of a urinary catheter, a closed drainage system is maintained. Catheter Care shall be provided daily for residents with Indwelling catheters and documented in the medical record. Purpose, to reduce risk of infection. Procedure- #8- A non-obstructed downhill flow must be maintained at all times. Keep the collection bag below the level of the bladder at all times. Do not rest the bag on the floor. Resident #76…
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.
- No harm found · B2026-05-08 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that daily nurse staffing information was prominently posted at the beginning of each shift in a clear, readable format accessible to residents and visitors. This was evident during the review of the facility's sufficient and competent staffing task.The findings include:The facility policy and procedure titled Posting of Nursing Staffing, last revised December 2025, stated the facility shall post daily the number of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care along with the resident census. The policy further indicated that this information should be posted on a bulletin board accessible to staff, residents, and visitors. During observations conducted from 05/03/2026 through 05/04/2026, the State Surveyor did not observe daily nurse staffing information posted in the lobby or on the nursing units in a location readily visible to residents and visitors. The staffing information was posted inside a vestibule on a bulletin board that was not readily accessible or visible…
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.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CASSENA CARE — 13 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARILLO, JOSEPH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 11% | since 03/09/2016 |
| DEBENEDICTIS, PASQUALE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 35% | since 03/09/2016 |
| FRIEDMAN, LEOPOLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 11% | since 03/09/2016 |
| SOLOVEY, ALEX | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 35% | since 03/09/2016 |
| DUMAGUING, CELMA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/01/2014 |
| MAIR, SCOTT | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/09/2012 |
| DEROSA, ANTHONY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/09/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 7 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 $18.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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 335232. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-01-23, 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.