Windsor Park Rehab & Nursing Center
212 40 Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, NY 11427 · For profit - Corporation · 70 certified beds · (718) 468-0800 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (19% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0603, F0604) — most recent Jun 2024
- 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
- inspectors cited 5 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $306,240 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-30)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 4 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 2 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 | 15.4% | 14.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.6% | 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 | 0.4% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.5% | 12.5% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 4.2% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.3% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.6% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.4% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 37.4% | 20.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.6% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.41 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.50 | 1.36 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
38.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 37 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 17.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 28 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 22% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 38.3%CMS range 24.9–56.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.1%CMS range 8.9–21.1 | 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 | 17.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 7.1% | 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 | 10.7% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 11.6%CMS range 7.0–18.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.41 | 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 70 beds and averages 61.5 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 8 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 4.04 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.06 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.51 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 3.62 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.21 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.18 to 0.77 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 19% 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-06-30 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 reviews and interviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00342374), the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. The facility must protect and promote the rights of the resident. This was evident for 13 out of 13 Justice Involved Residents. Specifically, 13 Justice Involved Residents were not allowed to exercise their rights while residing in the facility. Based on interviews with facility staff, residents and representatives of the Federal Bureau of Prison Services while residing in the facility, the residents remain in the custody and under the authority of the Bureau of Prisons. The Justice Involved Residents were not allowed to choose their own physician, make phone calls, formulate their own advance directives, receive visitors at the time of their choosing, receive their mail unopened, 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-06-30 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — patternHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 reviews, and interviews, conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00342374), the facility failed to ensure that thirteen Justice Involved Residents (Residents 1-13) had the right to, and that the facility promoted and facilitated the residents self-determination through support of residents choices. The facility did not ensure that Justice Involved Residents had the right to make choices about aspects of their life that were significant to them. This was evident in 13 of 13 Justice Involved Residents sampled for self-determination. Specifically, observations made on 06/06/2024, 06/26/2024 and 06/27/2024, during various times throughout the day revealed 13 Justice Involved Residents wearing two-foot-long shackles around their ankles which limited their movement throughout the facility. The Justice Involved Residents were under the supervision of Federal Bureau of Prison guards 24 hours a day. All observations on 06/06/2024 and 06/27/2024 confirmed all Justice Involved Residents were…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-06-30 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 reviews and interviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00342374), the facility failed to ensure residents were afforded the right to formulate advance directives while residing in the skilled nursing facility. This was evident for 13 out of 13 Justice Involved Residents (Resident #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) sampled. Specifically, a review of the medical record revealed that 13 Justice Involved Residents were designated as Full Code. The medical record did not document that the residents were provided written information that included their right to formulate advance directives in accordance with their wishes. During interviews with the Director of Social Work it was revealed the Justice Involved Residents were assigned full code status by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Director of Social Work further confirmed the facility did not advise Justice Involved Residents they had the right to formulate advance directives in accordance with their wishes. Interviews with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-06-30 · tag F0603 — failed to not confine residents against their will — patternProtect each resident from separation (from other residents, his/her room, or confinement to his/her room).
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 reviews and interviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00342374), the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. This was evident for 13 out of 13 Justice Involved Residents. Specifically, 13 Justice Involved Residents were not allowed to exercise their rights while residing in the facility. Based on interviews with facility staff, residents and representatives of the Federal Bureau of Prison Services while residing in the facility, the residents remain in the custody and under the authority of the Bureau of Prisons. The residents were not allowed to choose their own physician, make phone calls, formulate their own advance directives, receive visitors at the time of their choosing, receive their mail unopened, or communicate with other residents in the facility. Additionally, the residents were…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-06-30 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — patternEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00342374), the facility failed to ensure the residents were free from physical or chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and are not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. When the use of restraints is indicated, the facility must use the least restrictive alternative for the least amount of time and document ongoing re-evaluation of the need for restraints. This was evident for 13 out of 13 (Residents 1-13) sampled residents. Specifically, observations made at various times throughout the days on 06/06/2024, 06/26/2024, and 06/27/2024-06/28/2024 revealed that 11 Justice Involved Residents were wearing two-foot-long shackles around their ankles. One resident with a right leg amputation had their left wrist constantly handcuffed to the bedside rail. Each of the 11 residents was chained to their respective beds via a four-foot-long chain that was clipped to the middle of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-03 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 from 09/26/2024 to 10/03/2024, the facility did not ensure the residents' right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment was maintained. This was evident in 1 (West Side) of 2 units observed. Specifically, 1.) A resident's wheelchair has been observed with torn cushion on the left arm rest, 2.) The Hoyer lift was rusty with dark yellow and blackish stains on the metal frame, 3.) The wooden door frame on the whirlpool room had chipped paint, and 4.) The elevator was observed with layers of mismatched black colored paint. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Maintenance Service with a revision date of 01/2024 stated that it is the policy of the facility to provide maintenance services to all areas of the building, grounds, and equipment. The functions of maintenance personnel include maintaining the building in good repair and establish priorities in providing repair service. The following were observed during multiple observations conducted from 09/26/2024 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 · D2024-10-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 09/26/2024 to 10/03/2024, the facility did not ensure infection control practices and procedures were maintained. This was evident in 3 (Resident #159,#35, and #22) of 18 total sampled residents. Specifically, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 was observed using the same blood pressure cuff for Residents #159 and #22 without cleaning and disinfecting the blood pressure cuff in between each resident use. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 also failed to clean and disinfect the blood pressure machine after each usage. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Cleaning and Disinfection of Non -Critical Resident Care Equipment with a revision date of 01/2024 documented that shared equipment including transport equipment, will be cleaned, and disinfected after use by each patient/resident and as needed. On 10/01/2024 at 09:45AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 was observed going into Resident #159's room, removed the blue blood pressure cuff from the blood pressure machine and took Resident's # 159…
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 · F2024-06-30 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespreadAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (Complaint Intake #NY00342374), the facility failed to ensure that resident assessment accurately reflected the residents' status. This was evident for 13 of 13 Justice Involved Residents who were sampled (Residents 1-13). Specifically, observations made on 06/06/2024, 06/26/2024, 06/27/2024, and 06/28/2024 during various times through the day revealed 12 Justice Involved Residents wearing two-foot-long restraints around their ankles, one resident left wrist cuffed to their bed rail. Review of Section P of the residents' Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) did not identify that Justice Involved Residents (1-13) had restraints in use. The facility did not assess the residents properly and also violated the rights of the Justice Involved Residents allowing the use of restraints while at the facility. The findings are: A Policy titled Minimum Data Set, dated 01/2024, states it is the facility's policy to follow 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 · E2024-06-30 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 observations, record review, and interviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (Complaint Intake #NY00342374), the facility failed to ensure that resident assessment accurately reflected the residents' status. This was evident for 13 of 13 Justice Involved Residents who were sampled (Residents 1-13). Specifically, observations made on 06/06/2024, 06/26/2024, 06/27/2024, and 06/28/2024 during various times through the day revealed 12 Justice Involved Residents wearing two-foot-long restraints around their ankles, 1 resident left wrist cuffed to their bed rail. Review of Section P of the residents' Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) did not identify that Justice Involved Residents (1-13) had restraints in use. The facility did not assess the residents properly and also violated the rights of the Justice Involved Residents by allowing the restraints while at the facility. The findings are: A Policy titled Minimum Data Set, dated 01/2024, states it is the facility's policy to follow 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 · E2024-06-30 · tag F0841 — patternDesignate a physician to serve as medical director responsible for implementation of resident care policies and coordination of medical care in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00342374), the Medical Director failed to ensure resident care policies were implemented and the rights of individual were respected. This was evident for 13 Justice Involved Residents sampled (Justice Involved Residents #1-13). Specifically, on 06/06/2024, 06/26/2024, 06/27/2024, and 06/28/2024 during observations made various times throughout the day 11 Justice Involved Residents were observed wearing shackles around their ankles and 1 Justice Involved Residents were observed with their left wrist cuffed to the bed. During observations on 06/06/2024, 06/26/2024, 06/27/2024, and 06/28/2024 confirmed all Justice Involved Residents eating in their room. They were not allowed to participate in group activities, community dining, communicate freely with visitors, leave their rooms freely and receive mail that were not opened by the representatives of the Federal Bureau of Prison Services. The findings are: The facility'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 · D2023-10-24 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00324912), the facility failed to protect resident's rights to be free from physical abuse. The facility did not ensure that each resident was free from physical abuse. This was evident for 1 out of 6 residents (Resident #4) sampled for Abuse. Specifically, the facility surveillance camera, dated 09/26/23, showed Resident #4 hit Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #4 as CNA #4 was escorting Resident #4 from the dining room to Resident #4's room. CNA #4 then pulled Resident #4's hair. The findings are: The facility's Policy and Procedure dated 01/09/23, titled Abuse and Neglect states that it is the policy of the facility to assure residents are free from abuse and neglect, including involuntary seclusion. Residents will not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to facility staff, other residents, consultants, volunteers, family members, legal guardians, or outside members of the community. 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 · D2023-10-24 · 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
Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00324912), the facility failed to ensure that a reasonable suspicion of a crime against a resident or an individual receiving care from the facility was reported to the local law enforcement. This was evident for 1 out of 6 residents (Resident #4) sampled. Specifically, the facility surveillance camera dated 09/26/2023 showed Resident #4 hit Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #4 as CNA #4 was escorting Resident #4 from the dining room to Resident #4's room. CNA #4 then pulled on Resident #4's hair. The facility did not report the alleged allegation of abuse within 2 hours on 09/25/23 to local law enforcement. The facility reported the abuse to local law enforcement on 10/04/23 while the Department of Health (DOH) surveyors were onsite investigating the allegation of abuse. The findings are: The facility's Policy and Procedure title Reporting of Crime states that it is the policy of the facility to assure all alleged/suspected violations and all substantiated incident of abuse, or a crime has…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-24 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00321418), the facility did not ensure that a resident drug regimen was free from unnecessary medication. This was evident for one out of six residents (Resident #1) reviewed for antipsychotic medication. Specifically, Resident #1, who was not initially receiving an antipsychotic medication, was administered Haloperidol (an antipsychotic medication use used to treat certain mental/mood disorder such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder) 2miligrams (mg) as a onetime dose on 08/02/23 for diagnosis of Anxiety. There was no documented evidence that non-pharmacological interventions were attempted prior to the administration of the anti-psychotic medication. The findings are: Review of the Antipsychotic Medication Use Policy, revision date of 12/2016, states that Residents will only receive antipsychotic medications when necessary to treat specific conditions for which they are indicated and effective. The attending…
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 · C2024-10-03 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost 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 interview conducted during the Recertification Survey from 09/26/2024 to 10/03/2024, the facility did not ensure that the nurse staffing information was posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. Specifically, there was no available posting of daily nurse staffing information. The findings are: The facility policy titled Staffing with a reviewed date of 01/2024 stated that the facility provides sufficient number of staff with the skills and competency necessary to provide care and services for all residents in accordance with resident care plans and the facility assessment. Direct care staffing information per day is submitted to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services payroll based journal system on the schedule specified but no less than once a quarter. The policy did not contain information on posting of the daily nurse staffing information. During multiple observations conducted on 09/26/2024 and 09/30/2024, the State Surveyor was unable to locate the postings of the daily nurse staffing data for each…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$306,240 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $306,240 — penalty dated 2024-06-30
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESTATE OF ZVI KUPFER | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 12/04/2021 |
| KUPFER, JOYCE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 06/01/1986 |
| LANDA, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 29% | since 06/01/1986 |
| RE, ROBERT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 06/01/1986 |
| RUBIN, SUSAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 10/01/2010 |
| SALAMON, MENAJEM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 01/01/2022 |
| SALAMON, TIRTZA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 09/19/2023 |
| UNGER, KEVIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 10/01/2010 |
| UNGER, TODD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 10/01/2010 |
| GEWIRTZ, JONATHAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| GOLDMAN-ABRAMCHIK, DAVID | Individual | GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 09/19/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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 $420K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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 335155. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-03, 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.