White Plains Center For Nursing Care, L L C
220 West Post Road, White Plains, NY 10606 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 88 certified beds · (914) 686-8880 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 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 | 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 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.1% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 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 | 1.9% | 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 | 2.6% | 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 | 3.0% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 6.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.8% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.9% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.7% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.7% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.3% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.86 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.25 | 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.
50.2% 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 62 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 89.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 73 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 0.55 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 85% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 28% 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 | 50.2%CMS range 39.9–63.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 5.9–14.7 | 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 | 89.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 84.9% | 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 | 86.3% | 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 | 97.2% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 1.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.7%CMS range 4.3–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.67 | 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 88 beds and averages 82.9 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 5 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 4.09 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.62 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.82 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.20 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.87 to 0.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview conducted during a Recertification Survey the facility did not ensure food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, undated and unlabeled food items were observed in multiple freezers and refrigerator/s. The findings are;The facility policy Food Dating and Labeling dated 01/01/2023 documented all dining services employees shall enforce food safety by properly dating and labeling of all food items. Upon delivery all food items must be labeled with date received. In addition to food products being dated upon delivery, items will be dated when container is opened if not used in entirety.During an initial tour/observation of the kitchen on 09/09/2025 at 8:28 AM the refrigerator in the main kitchen contained a package of sliced cheese and a large container of applesauce that were not dated or labeled. The meat freezer contained unlabeled and undated chicken (two packages), rib meats, two sleeves of hamburger meat, a pork loin and pork chops. An adjacent freezer had undated and unlabeled packages 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 · Ecited before2025-09-15 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey indicated that the facility did not provide residents with a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Specifically, multiple resident rooms showed signs of maintenance issues, including spackle and chipped paint, stained and sticky floors, an unpleasant odor, missing blinds, cabinets with chipped paint, black streaks on doors, and a white tint on a window. Furthermore, there was damage to the left armrest of Resident #74's wheelchair, and the wheelchair/seat cushion were soiled with white particles. The findings include:The Maintenance Policy last revised 10/2024 documented the purpose was to establish procedures for reporting, prioritizing, and resolving maintenance and repair needs in the facility, ensuring a safe and well-maintained environment for residents, staff, and visitors.The Wheelchair and Geri-Chair Cleaning Policy last revised 9/2025 documented the purpose is to remove dirt and dust for the purpose of infection control, 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 · Dcited before2025-09-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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
Based on observation, record review and interviews during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure care was provided in a manner to maintain dignity and privacy for one (1) of (2) two residents (Resident #4) reviewed for dignity. Specifically, Resident #4 was observed undressed in bed with their body fully exposed and visible from the hallway. The findings include:The policy and procedure titled Resident Dignity and Privacy Policy last revised 03/17/2025, documented assist residents in grooming with full respect for their privacy and dignity. Visual privacy during activities of daily living care should be maintained at all times.Resident #4 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including hemiplegia, aphasia and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The 07/13/2025 Minimum Data Set (resident assessment) documented Resident #4 had severely impaired cognition received substantial staff assistance with toileting hygiene, rolling left to right and showers/baths and was dependent on staff with chair to bed transfers. The 10/06/2019 comprehensive care plan titled Preferences…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-15 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure the residents right to personal privacy, including the right to promptly receive a package delivered to the facility for the resident, including those delivered through a means other than a postal service for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #33) reviewed for choices. Specifically, 1) the facility did not promptly deliver a package within 24 hours to Resident #33 after it had been shipped to and received by the facility.The findings include:The undated policy and procedure titled Mail Delivery documented the facility will ensure that all mail and packages are delivered to the appropriate recipient in a timely, correct and efficient manner. Resident #33 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease, heart failure and diabetes mellitus.The 06/11/2025 Minimum Data Set (resident assessment) documented Resident # 33 had intact cognition.During observation and interview 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 · D2025-09-15 · 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
Based on observation, record review and interviews during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure that needed equipment was provided to assure that residents with limited range of motion and mobility maintained or improved function based on the residents' clinical condition for one (1) of (4) residents (Resident # 50) reviewed for position and mobility. Specifically, Resident #50 was observed on three occasions without the use of a physician prescribed left elbow extension splint and left-hand roll. The findings include:The policy and procedure titled Use of Positioning Devices for Residents last revised 01/2025, documented proper use of positioning devices is essential to support resident independence and mobility. Nursing staff are responsible to implement care plans, perform skin assessment, apply and monitor devices, document care provided. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including cerebrovascular accident, hemiplegia and non-Alzheimer's dementia.The comprehensive care plan titled Contractures/Actual last updated on 11/15/2023 documented…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-15 · 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 record review and staff interview during the Recertification Survey the facility did not ensure that they adequately maintained an infection control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #3) reviewed for pressure ulcers and that a Legionella sampling and water management plan for its potable water system was adopted and implemented. Specifically, (1) Registered Nurse #3 touched surfaces and then without performing hand hygiene handled guaze that was used to clean Resident #3's wound and (2) the facility did not provide a water management and sampling plan at the time of survey. The findings include: The infection and prevention control program policy dated 02/20/2025 documented the facility will establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program under which it prevents, identifies, reports, investigates, and controls the spread of infections and communicable diseases in the facility. (1) Resident # 3 was admitted with diagnoses including but not limited to hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-15 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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 the facility did not ensure infection control prevention practices were maintained to prevent development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection for all residents. Specifically, there was no documented evidence of COVID-19 education, COVID-19 vaccination administration and/or COVID-19 declination for two (2) of ten (10) staff (Certified Nurse Aide #20 and Licensed Practical Nurse #21) reviewed for COVID-19 vaccination. The findings are:Review of staff immunization records revealed there was no documented evidence that Certified Nurse Aide #20 and Licensed Practical Nurse #21 were offered the COVID-19 vaccination, COVID-19 vaccination education, and that COVID-19 vaccination consent or declination had been signed. During an interview on 09/10/2025 at 12:07 PM the Director of Nursing stated they started obtaining consent/s for the COVID-19 vaccination last fall. They stated they also provided COVID-19 vaccination education and had staff sign declinations. They stated they…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-12-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, 1. Two heavily soiled circulation fans were in use, one in a food production area and one at the clean side of the dishwasher, 2. a. kitchen staff used their bare hand to retrieve a piece of aluminum foil that had fallen into a pan of chicken and gravy, and b. a soiled and peeling food cart was in use for holding cooked foods, 3. 1 of 3 nourishment refrigerators contained multiple unlabeled and expired food items, 4. a. For 2 of 2 microwaves for use on the resident units ([NAME] and Maple Avenue), there were no thermometers available to check food temperatures and b. for 1 of 2 microwaves (Maple Avenue) there were no procedures/guidance posted and no thermometer available to ensure monitoring for safe food temperatures, and 5. Dietary staff did not follow safe food handling procedures while…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-04 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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 observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey from 11/28/23 to 12/4/23, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a dignified existence in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of quality of life for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #46) reviewed for dignity. Specifically, Resident #46 had a sign next to their bed stating walk me every day. Findings include: Resident #46 was admitted with diagnoses including but not limited to malignant neoplasm of the lung and acquired absences of the larynx. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #46 had moderately impaired cognition and required limited assistance of one staff for ambulation. During observations on 11/28/23 at 3:09 PM, 11/30/23 at 1:00 PM and 12/1/2023 at 10:56 AM, the wall next to near the bed of Resident #46 had a sign which documented walk me every day and included a picture of staff assisting with ambulation. During an interview on 12/1/2023 at 3:28…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-04 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 11/28/23 to 12/4/23, it was determined the facility did not ensure maintenance services necessary to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment were provided for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #40) reviewed for environment. Specifically, Resident #40's room had an accordion style bathroom door that was falling off the track. The findings are: The policy titled Maintenance effective 10/2017, documented to ensure that necessary work was completed on a timely basis and that appropriate records of all work were maintained. The maintenance logbook dated 7/10/2022, documented room [ROOM NUMBER]/216 toilet door was still broken. The maintenance logbook dated 3/17/2023, documented room [ROOM NUMBER]-bathroom door was broken and falling down. During observations on 11/28/2023 at 12:55 PM and 11/30/2023 at 12:51 PM, the bathroom door on the side of room [ROOM NUMBER] was broken and hanging off the track.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-04 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is 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 during the recertification survey from 11/28/23 to 12/4/23, the facility did not ensure a dependent resident was provided with appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve their mobility for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #65) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Specifically, nursing staff did not ensure Resident #65's progressive mobility was maintained in accordance with the providers orders and professional standards. The findings are: Resident #65 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to intracerebral hemorrhage, epilepsy, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 10/1/23, documented Resident #65 was severely cognitively impaired, had impairment of both upper and both lower extremities, and required assistance for mobility and transferring. A current provider order initiated 3/1/23 document Resident #65 was to be out 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 · Dcited before2020-10-13 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during a recertification survey, it cannot be ensured that the facility stored food in resident refrigerators according to professional standards for food safety to prevent foodborne illness. Specifically, foods stored in 2 of 3 unit refrigerators (First and Second Floors) were not labeled with the resident's name or the date the item was brought to the facility. The findings are: Review of the facility policy titled, Use and Storage of Food Brought to Residents by Visitors, dated 8/2019 showed that food brought in for a resident is to be labeled by nursing staff with the resident's name, room number, and date the item was brought to the facility. Furthermore, cooked or prepared food brought to the facility is to be discarded after 72 hours by the nursing staff. 1. The first-floor resident pantry refrigerator on the [NAME] Unit was observed with RN #1 on 10/8/2020 at 12:05PM and contained several items brought in from outside the facility. Three…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to OPTIMA CARE — 8 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 | 3.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 7 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MENDEL, BORIS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/24/2018 |
| ROVT, ALEXANDER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 90% | since 01/24/2018 |
| MENDEL, ERIC | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/24/2018 |
| AVINARI, ILANA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/24/2018 |
| LOFFREDO, LINDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/09/2025 |
| ZAKARIA, MUHAMMAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| EMM HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/24/2018 |
| RM HOLDINGS WHITE PLAINS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/24/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners 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 $1.1M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 335224. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-15, 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.