65 Ashburton Avenue, Yonkers, NY 10701 · Westchester County · (914) 963-4000
315 certified beds, about 301 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1971
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 335080 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 14, 2026, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the New York average is 8.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 61 health citations since September 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $105,707 in the last three years; the largest was $56,044, and the latest is dated April 14, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.08 hours per resident per day, against 3.63 across New York and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.92 of those hours.
29.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (New York average 40.3%).
CMS links it to Infinite Care, an affiliated group of 8 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 61 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and/or assistive devices to prevent elopement for two of six residents (Resident #1, Resident # 2) reviewed for elopement. Specifically, 1) Resident #1 was assessed as an elopement risk on 05/20/2026, refused a wander guard and was placed on hourly head counts. On 06/19/2026, Resident # 1 eloped from the facility with the last hourly head count for Resident #1 documented at 10:00 AM. Subsequently, the Nurse Progress Note dated 06/20/2026 at 01:00 PM documented the facility received a phone call from a detective at the [NAME] Police Department, who confirmed that Resident # 1 had gone to Resident # 1's Representative's residence (Manhattan) and stayed there overnight; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that the resident, resident representative, were informed in writing and in a language and manner they understood for one of eight (Resident #1) residents reviewed for discharge. Specifically, there was no documented evidence in the medical record to indicate the facility had ongoing communication and follow up to address the 05/22/2026 Resident Representative's inquiry regarding Resident #1 being transferred to a skilled nursing facility closer to their home in [NAME] New York. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and/or revised for two of 36 residents (Resident #1, Resident #2) reviewed for care plan. Specifically, 1. for Resident #1 who was assessed on 05/20/2026 to be at risk for elopement and refused to wear a wander guard the comprehensive Care Plan was not reviewed and/or revised to address every one hour head count/visual checks and 2. for Resident #2 there was no documented evidence that the comprehensive Care Plan was reviewed and/or revised to address certified nurse aide reports that Resident #2 did not always wear a wander guard and a 06/23/2026 at 2:14 PM observation of Resident #2 without a wander guard. Additionally, the Care Plan was not updated to reflect the change to the wander guard serial # 8CC1CA after a new wander guard was provided on 06/23/2026.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews during survey, the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible with the use of assistive device for one (1) (Resident #169) of four (4) residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, the use of a left-enabler bar (bar attached to the bed designed to facilitate movement, improve safety) was not implemented as per physician order for Resident #169, which resulted in a 04/05/2025 fall from bed when Certified Nurse Aide #8 turned Resident #169 onto their left side during care. Subsequently, Resident #169 was transferred to the hospital and diagnosed with a right intertrochanteric (thigh bone) fracture (broken bone). This resulted in actual harm to Resident #169 that was not Immediately Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews during recertification survey and abbreviated survey (# 649776), the facility failed to ensure that food was stored and prepared in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, 1) Resident #153 had complaint of expired milk in July 2025 2) the kitchen refrigerator/freezer and unit 4/unit 5 pantries contained unlabeled and undated food, 3) the unit 4 pantry and the kitchen contained expired foods and 4) milk was not maintained at the proper temperature.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility did not ensure that the call bell system was accessible for one (1) (Resident #74) of seven (7) residents reviewed for environment. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that Resident's #74's call bell was within reach.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure prompt efforts to resolve grievances for one (1) of five (5) residents (Resident #116) reviewed for personal property. Specifically, there was no documented evidence that a thorough investigation was conducted, and that Resident #116 was compensated for lost clothing that was reported to the facility on [DATE] and 03/02/2026.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from restraints for one (1) of one (1) resident (Resident #10) reviewed for restraints. Specifically, there was no documented evidence that a physician order, assessment, consent, and a care plan were in place to address the use of an abdominal binder for Resident #10.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set assessment 3.0 accurately reflected the resident's status for one (1) of one (Resident #7) reviewed for smoking. Specifically, the 08/28/2025 comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessment was not coded to reflect Resident #7's use of tobacco.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised to reflect the current code status for two (2) of two (2) residents (Resident #7 and Resident #101) reviewed for advance directives. Specifically, 1) there was no documented evidence that advance directive care plans were reviewed and care plan interventions updated to accurately reflect cardiopulmonary resuscitation status for Resident #7 as per physician order and 2) there was no documented evidence that advance directive care plans were reviewed and care plan interventions updated to accurately reflect cardiopulmonary resuscitation status for Resident #101 as per physician order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure each resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary care and services for one (1) of eight (8) residents (Resident #145) reviewed for activities of daily living. Specifically, 1) toileting assistance was not provided every two (2) hours as per comprehensive care plan for Resident #145, who required assistance with toileting.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that care and services were provided in accordance with resident preference and professional standards of practice that met physical and psychosocial needs for one (1) of one (1) resident (Resident #74) reviewed for rehabilitation and restorative. Specifically, a prosthetic fitting was not completed as per the 08/06/2025 vascular consultation recommendation for Resident #74 with a left below knee amputation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for respiratory care. Specifically, Resident #85 had a physician order for oxygen to be delivered at two to three liters per minute via nasal cannula and was administered 4.5 liters of oxygen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview the facility failed to ensure that residents were seen by a Physician at least once every thirty days for the first ninety days after being admitted to the facility for one (1) of five (5) residents (Resident #14) reviewed for infection control. Specifically, there was no documented evidence that Resident #14 who was admitted to the facility 01/2026 was seen by a medical provider after 02/14/2026.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and professional standard of practice for one (1) of one (1) resident (Resident #116) reviewed for medication storage. Specifically, Resident #116 room was observed to have physician ordered medications / treatments on the bedside table that included two (2) opened packets of maximum strength lidocaine pain relief gel patch 4%, each pouch contained one (1) patch.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure proper disposal of garbage and refuse. Specifically, 1) the recycling dumpster lid was left open and there were cardboard boxes spilling over the top and other debris was observed behind and to the side of the dumpster, and 2) the garbage compactor had food debris puddled in front of the compactor door and litter on the ground surrounding the compactor. Findings Include:A review of the policy and procedure titled Garbage Removal Policy reviewed 09/2025 documented, the facility shall ensure safe, sanitary, and compliant management of all waste in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations to maintain a clean and safe environment. Waste shall be stored in designated areas and must be clean and well-maintained, pest-resistant and not accumulated beyond acceptable limits. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection for two (2) of five (5) residents (Resident #14 and Resident #56) reviewed for infection control. 1) Specifically, Physical Therapist Assistant #15 provided range of motion without the use of a gown for Resident #14 with a physician order for contact precautions. Additionally, the precaution sign on Resident #14's door indicated enhanced barrier precautions and 2) Certified Nurse Aide #7 provided cares without the use of a gown for Resident #56 with an indwelling supra-pubic catheter who had a physician order for enhanced barrier precautions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews conducted during the Abbreviated Surveys (649784 and 649783), the facility did not ensure that residents at risk for elopement received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 2 (Resident #1 and #2) of 3 residents reviewed. Specifically, 1) On 1/26/2025, Resident #1 who had documented evidence of elopement attempts and was on one-to-one supervision was left unattended by Patient care Assistant #1 to go on their dinner break. Resident #1 exited the facility without their wheelchair and without detection from staff. The Facility wander guard system did not alarm. Resident #1 was later found at the bus station in front of the building. 2) Resident #2 who had been assessed as an elopement risk exited the facility on 03/23/2025 at 5:48PM without staff detection. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Abbreviated Surveys (#649784 and #649783), the facility did not ensure that a comprehensive care plan was timely developed to address elopement risk for 1 (Resident #3) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, Resident #3 was assessed as an elopement risk on 09/02/2025 and had a wander guard placed on 09/02/2025 but the elopement care plan was not initiated until 09/04/2025. Review of the Care Plan and the Certified Nurse Aide Assignment/Accountability Record showed that wander guard monitoring instructions were not updated until 09/04/2025.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Abbreviated Survey (649783), the facility did not ensure that the comprehensive care plan was revised to include measurable interventions to address an identified elopement risk for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 residents reviewed. Specifically, review of the facility's investigation summary dated 03/23/2025 documented that Resident #2 was to be placed on one-to-one supervision at night following an elopement incident. Review of Resident #2's care plan showed that one-to-one supervision intervention was not incorporated into the plan of care. As a result, the resident's comprehensive care plan did not reflect all identified interventions necessary to address their assessed elopement risk. Subsequently on 04/14/2025, Resident #2 eloped again from the facility and was found by local police wandering on a nearby street. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews conducted during the Abbreviated Survey (649752), the facility did not ensure that necessary care and services were provided to maintain the resident's highest practicable physical well-being for one (Resident #3) of three residents reviewed for respiratory infections. Specifically, for Resident #3, the facility did not ensure timely medical evaluation and initiation of appropriate treatment after receiving positive laboratory results for Influenza A on 01/31/2025. The Physician was not immediately notified about the test results causing a delay in treatment. The facility treatment plan for the resident was initiated on 02/02/2025. The facility policy titled Influenza Protocol reviewed 04/2025 documented that Influenza antiviral treatment should be administered to residents and healthcare personnel according to current CDC guidelines. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews conducted during the Abbreviated Survey (649752), the facility did not ensure that infection prevention and control practices and procedures were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one (Resident #3) of three residents reviewed for respiratory infections. Specifically, on 01/30/2025, Resident #3 had a Respiratory Panel plus COVID test completed, and on 01/31/2025, the results came back positive for Influenza A. The facility did not implement droplet precautions until 02/02/2025. When requested, the facility was unable to provide documented evidence that droplet precautions were initiated after the positive results were obtained on 01/31/2025.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (2621561), the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, on 09/02/2025 Resident #1 who had a history of being combative with care and required two (2) staff assistance for bed mobility, fell out of bed and sustained a laceration to the left eyebrow when Certified Nurse Aide # 1 turned around to retrieve a mechanical lift pad from the resident's chair. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #1 that was not Immediate Jeopardy. Resident #1 had diagnoses including Parkinson's disease (a progressive neuro-degenerative disorder that primarily affects movement), impaired mobility, and falls. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00372408) the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains free of accident hazards as is possible and each resident receives adequate supervision to prevent accidents for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for safety and supervision. Specifically, on 1/5/2025, Resident #1 obtained hot water from the hot liquid cart, filled their basin and carried it to a room and immersed their feet without the knowledge or detection of unit staff. Resident #1 was found with blisters to bilateral feet and sustained second- and third-degree burns. On 1/15/2025, Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital with a fever and for burn evaluation. On admission to the hospital, Resident #1 was determined to have third degree burns and underwent a skin graft on 1/21/2025. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00372408), the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations are thoroughly investigated for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. Specifically, on 1/5/2025 Resident #1 obtained hot liquid from the hot liquid cart on the unit and carried the hot liquid to another resident's room unwitnessed/undetected by staff. Resident #1 immersed their feet in the hot liquid for 25 to 30 minutes and sustained second and third- degree burns to both feet. The accident/incident report documentation was noted to be inconsistent with the summary of events reported by Resident #1 and the witnesses to the incident on 1/5/2025. Additionally there was no documented evidence of statements from Certified Nurse Aide #1 and Resident #2, who were witnesses to the incident that occurred on 1/5/2025.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews during a partial extended survey, the facility administrator did not ensure they used its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, on 1/5/2025 a resident obtained hot water from the hot liquid cart and sustained second- and third-degree burns. The Administrator did not initiate any policy changes or protocol updates to prevent reoccurrence of such incidents or provide any documentation to support review of the incident details. In addition, the Administrator also did not provide any documented evidence of action plans or performance improvement plans implemented for identified areas of deficiencies discussed in Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meetings held on 2/3/2025, 2/12/2025 and 2/27/2025.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews conducted during a partial extended survey (NY00372408), the facility did not ensure the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee developed and implemented appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies. Specifically, on 1/5/2025 a resident obtained hot water from the hot liquid cart and sustained second- and third-degree burns. There were no documented evidence of any good faith attempts by the committee to identify and correct the deficiencies brought about by the 1/5/2025 incident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review during the recertification survey from 12/11/2024 to 12/18/2024, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to privacy when sending and receiving mail. This was evident for 15 (Resident #s 150, 202, 248, 246, 370, 126, 146, 185, 15, 181, 133, 22, 205, 162, and 51) of 15 resident in attendance at the Resident Council Meeting. Specifically, Resident #s 150, 202, 248, 246, 370, 126, 146, 185, 15, 181, 133, 22, 205, 162, and 51 reported they did not have the right to personal privacy because the facility staff opened residents' mail delivered to the facility before allowing the mail to be distributed to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 12/11/2024 to 12/18/2024, the facility did not ensure an admission policy was established and implemented that did not require a resident representative to pay for facility care without incurring personal financial liability, and did not require residents to waive their rights and facility liability for losses of personal property. This was evident for 11 out of 11 residents reviewed for Admission. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00336283) survey from 12/11/2024 to 12/18/2024, the facility did not ensure that Minimum Data Set 3.0 Assessments accurately reflected the residents' status. This was evident for 1 (Resident #276) of 10 residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers, 1 (Resident #217) of 6 residents reviewed for Accidents, and 1 (Resident #320) of 5 residents reviewed for Discharge. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00336283) surveys from 12/11/24 to 12/18/24, the facility did not ensure residents at risk for pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote wound healing, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 2 of 10 residents (Residents #276 and #115) reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. Specifically, 1) for Resident #276 at risk for skin breakdown there was no documented evidence that preventative measures as per care plan and the use of heel booties as per the 1/30/24 physician order were implemented prior to the development of a 2/9/24 left heel pressure ulcer and 3/1/24 left dorsal foot deep tissue injury and 2) Resident #115's air mattress pressure was not inflated according to the Resident's weight.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey from 12/11/24 to 12/18/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident received necessary respiratory care in accordance with professional standards of practice and as ordered by the practitioner for 3 (Resident #168, Resident #194, and Resident #69) of 6 residents reviewed for respiratory care. Specifically, 1) Resident #168 was observed tracheostomy self-suctioning without a physician order, 2) Resident #194 with a physician order for 3 and/or 5 liters of continuous oxygen was observed receiving 7 and/or 8 liters of oxygen and 3) for Resident #69 there was no documented evidence to indicate the oxygen tubing/cannula were being changed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 12/11/2024 to 12/18/2024, the facility did not ensure residents and their representatives were explicitly informed of their right not to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of admission to the facility. This was evident for 2 of 3 (Residents 211, and 182) residents reviewed for Arbitration. Specifically, facility admission Agreements for Resident #211, and #182 included language that the resident and/or resident representative signature was applicable to a Binding Arbitration Agreement (an attached document included in the admission Packet).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00356093) surveys from 12/11/2024 to 12/18/2024, the facility did not ensure an effective pest control program was maintained to ensure the facility was free of pests. This was evident for 3 (2nd, 4th, and 6th Floors) of 5 resident floors reviewed for environment. Specifically, a 2nd floor Resident reported seeing roaches in their room, and roaches were observed on the 4th and 6th Floors.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey from 12/11/24 to 12/18/24, the facility did not ensure Certified Nurse Aides were provided the required 12 hours of training and/or annual in-services to ensure safe delivery of care including dementia management and resident abuse prevention training. Specifically, the facility was unable to provide documentation that 5 of 5 Certified Nurse Aides (#22, #24, #25, #26, and #27), were provided dementia management training. Additionally, the facility was unable to provide documentation that Certified Nurse Aide (#27) completed12 hours in-service training, and abuse prevention training.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated surveys from 12/11/24 to 12/18/24, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a dignified experience for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #90) reviewed for dignity. Specifically, the fitted mattress sheet on Resident #90's bed was observed stained and not changed for six days.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 12/11/24 to 12/18/24, the facility did not ensure the resident's right to manage their financial affairs and a resident provided written authorization prior to depositing the resident's funds with the facility 1 (Resident #162) of 2 residents reviewed for personal funds. Specifically, the facility did not inform Resident #162 upon receipt of the resident's tax refund checks in the mail and did not obtain written authorization from Resident #162 prior to depositing the tax refund checks in a facility's operating account.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 12/11/2024 to 12/18/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident's right to be free of misappropriation of their property. This was evident for 1 (Resident #162) of 2 residents reviewed for personal funds. Specifically, tax return checks mailed to Resident #162 were taken by the facility Business Office without the resident's knowledge or consent and deposited into the facility's bank account.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00354189) surveys from 12/11/2024 to 12/18/2024, the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made to the State Survey Agency. Specifically, a resident-to-resident altercation involving Resident #42 and Resident #273 on 9/12/24 at 2:50 PM was not reported to the State Survey Agency until 9/12/24 at 6:17 PM.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00352882) survey from 12/11/2024 to 12/18/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident's representative was notified in writing of a resident's facility initiated discharge. This was evident for 1 (Resident #255) of 5 residents reviewed for Discharge. Specifically, Resident #255 received a Notice of discharge on [DATE] and there was no documented evidence that a copy of the discharge notice was not sent to the resident representative.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview conducted during the recertification and abbreviated survey (NY 00344069) from 12/11/24 to 12/18/24, the facility did not ensure each resident was provided with the necessary care and services to ensure the resident's ability to communicate their needs to staff was available. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #275) reviewed for communication. Specifically, Resident #275 who spoke Spanish as their primary language was not provided with a Spanish translator as indicated in the resident's Care Plan. Additionally, the staff did not know how to access a translation device or services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00348967), the facility did not provide person-centered care and services necessary to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one of six residents (Resident #271) reviewed for Accidents. Specifically for Resident # 271 with a history of pneumonitis due to inhalation of food/vomit and dysphagia the facility did not develop and/or implement a plan to address the resident's individual needs and minimize risk of potential choking hazards as per 3/25/24 hospital visit summary swallowing recommendations for a soft, bite-sized diet texture, mildly thick liquids with no straw, and intermittent supervision to monitor for aspiration and after Resident #271 verbalized a 6/28/24 request for chopped texture proteins due to difficulty with chewing chicken and beef. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY 00348067) survey from 12/11/2024 to 12/18/2024, the facility did not ensure the physician reviewed the resident's total program of care, including medications and treatments, at each visit. This was evident for 1 (Resident #271) of 6 residents reviewed for Accidents. Specifically, Medical Doctor #1 did not review and document a hospital Speech Pathology dysphagia diagnosis and diet texture recommendations for Resident #271 and did not review a Dietician note documenting Resident #271 had difficulty eating a regular texture diet.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey conducted from 12/11/24 to 12/18/24, the facility did not ensure that each resident received the necessary behavioral health care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being for one (Resident #220) of four residents reviewed for mental health services. Specifically, a psychology consult for Resident #220 was not conducted as per physician order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 12/11/24 to 12/18/24, the facility did not ensure all drugs and/or biologicals in 1 of 3 medication storage rooms and 1 of 6 medication carts were labeled and stored in accordance with professional standards. Specifically, an insulin pen, (Lantus Solostar 100 units) for Resident #93 with a use by date of 11/6/24 remained in the refrigerator on unit 4 and a controlled medication (Phenobarbital) remained in the locked drawer of the moveable medication cart on unit 4.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00347152), the facility did not ensure residents were free from abuse neglect/misappropriation of property and exploitation and that non dialysis residents were protected for 1 (Resident #3) of 3 residents reviewed. Specifically, (1) on 7/2/2024 during a discharge planning meeting with the facility social worker, Resident #1 alleged that the dialysis transportation worker withdrew a total amount of $5,900 from their cash app account. The incident was reported to Law enforcement on 7/3/2024. The facility did not ensure the transportation worker did not have access to resdientst who were not on dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00347152), the facility did not ensure residents rights to be free from abuse/misappropriation of property for 1 (Resident #3) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, on 7/2/24 during a discharge planning meeting with the facility social worker, Resident #3 alleged that the dialysis transportation worker withdrew a total amount of $5,900 from their cash app account. The incident was reported to Law enforcement on 7/3/24; (2) There was no documented evidence that other residents who were transported by the dialysis transportation worker were interviewed after the incident.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00326265), the facility did not ensure a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 2 of 3 Residents (Resident #1, #4) reviewed for quality of care. Specifically, the facility did not ensure a timely gynecological appointment for Resident #1 who had episodes of vaginal bleeding and a pelvic ultrasound result with a service date 3/20/23 showed enlarged extremely heterogeneous lobulated uterus most likely due to multiple fibroids. Resident was transferred to the hospital on 6/20/2023 for vaginal bleeding; 2) Resident #4 was admitted to the facility with intravenous antibiotic for infection on 6/6/2023. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 8/30/23-9/8/23, the facility did not ensure that residents or residents' representatives were notified in writing of the reason for the transfer/discharge to the hospital in a language that they understood, and the facility did not notify the Ombudsman for 6 of 6 residents (Residents # 2, 79, 222, 68, 97, and 215) reviewed for hospitalization. Specifically, the residents were transferred to the hospital and the facility could not provide evidence that a written notice of transfer/discharge was provided to the residents or the residents' representatives and that notification was sent to the Ombudsman.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey from 8/30/23-9/8/23, the facility did not ensure that residents or resident's representatives were notified in writing of the facility Bed Hold Policy for 6 of 6 residents (Residents # 2, 79, 222, 68, 97, and 215) reviewed for hospitalization. Specifically, the residents were transferred to the hospital and the facility was unable to provide evidence that written notice of the facility Bed Hold Policy was given to the residents or their representatives.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review during the Recertification Survey from 8/30/23 to 9/8/23, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a dignified existence for 3 of 6 residents observed for dining. Specifically, Residents #132, #109, #79, were observed being fed by staff while staff were standing over the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews during a recertification survey and abbreviated surveys (NY 00320148), the facility failed to protect residents right to be free from abuse and psychological harm. The facility did not ensure that each resident was protected from resident-to-resident altercations for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #68) reviewed for behavior resulting in 4 other residents being assaulted (Residents #108, #153, #335, and #80). Specifically, Resident #68 had physical altercations with 4 other residents and interventions were not put in place to prevent recurrence. (1) On 11/8/22 Resident #68 slapped Resident #108 in the face; (2) On 6/15/23 Resident #68 went to Resident #153's room on another unit, Resident #68 had Resident #153 in a head lock, and Resident #153 had a minor scratch; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 8/30/2023 to 9/8/2023, the facility did not implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property and includes the screening of prospective employees and residents. Specifically, an employee who was hired on a contingent basis was not provided supervision while working in the facility pending their criminal history record check (CHRC) completion/return. This was identified for 1 of 5 employees reviewed for CHRC.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 8/30/2023 to 9/8/2023, the facility did not ensure that a resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the resident's status. This was evident for 2 of 39 residents (Residents #67 and # 200) reviewed for MDS accuracy. Specifically, 1) for Resident #67, the MDS assessment did not document the resident's most recent weight, therefore the weight loss of more than 10% over 6 months was not reflected. 2) for Resident # 200, the MDS assessment did not reflect the resident having intermittent catheterization.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews during a recertification survey and an abbreviated survey (NY 00320148), the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) program for 1 of 2 residents, sampled for PASARR. Specifically, Resident #68 had a referral for a PASARR Level II assessment sent via fax to Ascend (an agency that assesses for appropriate placement) on 6/14/23 and there was no documented evidence of any follow up, and the Level II assessment was never completed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey from 8/30/2023 to 9/8/2023, the facility did not ensure for 2 of 2 residents (#67 and #174) reviewed for positioning and limited mobility that appropriate treatment and services were provided to improve and/or prevent a further decrease in range of motion (ROM). Specifically, 1) Resident #67 did not have a hand roll to their right hand or a carrot splint to left hand applied as ordered by the physician. 2) Resident # 174 was not wearing bilateral knee braces and bilateral heels were not off loaded as per occupational therapy recommendations and physicians orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 8/30/23 to 9/8/23, the facility did not ensure accurate staffing information was posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents, staff, and visitors. Specifically, the facility did not post the total and actual hours of licensed and unlicensed staff directly responsible for resident care daily from 8/17/2023 - 8/30/2023.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 8/30/23 to 9/8/23, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety to ensure prevention of foodborne illness. Specifically, 1) Food contact surfaces were not maintained in a sanitary condition. 2) The three bay sink sanitizer solution was under the minimum required quaternary ammonium sanitizer test range of 150 parts per million (PPM) to ensure the concentration of the sanitizer was strong enough to kill bacteria, viruses, and fungi. 3) Multiple cold foods were not held for service at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or lower.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey conducted on 8/30/2023 - 9/8/2023, the facility did not ensure that the trash compactor area was maintained in a sanitary condition to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests, was free from leaks, free of debris, and free of foul odors. Specifically, the ground near the trash compactor was littered with paper and plastic debris, gnats and flies were observed around the trash compactor, and a pool of yellow-ish/green-ish colored liquid with white foam on its surface was observed under the front left wheel of the compactor and was emanating a strong, sour odor.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews during the Recertification Survey from 8/30/23 to 9/8/23, the facility did not ensure the facility established and maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, 1) Resident #132 had a Foley bag (urinary drainage bag) on the floor. 2) The facility Water Management Plan was not updated. 3) A dirty linen cart was touching and in between two clean linen carts.
6 fire safety citations on file: 1 on April 14, 2026, 3 on December 18, 2024, 2 on September 8, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 14, 2026 | Fine | $20,950 |
| April 14, 2026 | Fine | $28,713 |
| February 25, 2025 | Fine | $56,044 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | New York | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.08 | 3.63 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.92 | 0.71 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.88 | 3.18 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.90 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.26 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 29.3% | 40.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 20.0% | 39.8% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.42 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.15 on weekdays and 2.88 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 4.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.38 in April to June 2025 to 3.08 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.08 | 0.92 | 3.15 | 2.88 | 4.5% | 0 of 90 | 301 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.26 | 1.03 | 3.35 | 3.04 | 5.2% | 0 of 92 | 288 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.34 | 1.07 | 3.44 | 3.09 | 6.4% | 0 of 92 | 281 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.38 | 1.07 | 3.50 | 3.10 | 6.4% | 0 of 91 | 286 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| New York, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.55 | 0.68 | 3.72 | 3.13 | 9.8% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $23.36 | $21.04 to $24.99 | 87,990 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $32.30 | $29.52 to $37.00 | 39,400 |
| Registered nurses | $52.62 | $45.60 to $62.34 | 205,810 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | New York | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.7 | 14.1 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.7 | 12.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.2 | 6.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.6 | 20.6 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.6 | 9.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Hudson Hill Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (29.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
29.2% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · New York: 101 better, 157 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 84 eligible stays.
12.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · New York: 12 better, 5 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 119 eligible stays.
6.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · New York: 7 better, 21 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 107 eligible stays.
67.7% this home
Median of homes: New York60.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 158 residents counted.
1.5% this home
Median of homes: New York0.6% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 268 residents counted.
2.4% this home
Median of homes: New York2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 268 residents counted.
95.5% this home
Median of homes: New York98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 22 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: HUDSON VIEW CARE CENTER INC.. CMS links this home to Infinite Care, a group of 8 nursing homes averaging 2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melnicke, Michael | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 100% | 10/01/1993 |
| Skolnik, Yaakov | Corporate director | Individual | 10/01/2005 | |
| Skolnik, Yaakov | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/01/2005 | |
| Skolnik, Yaakov | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2005 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
Licensed assisted living homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its New York inspection record.
These are the official offices in New York. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.