New York ›Uniondale

A Holly Patterson Extended Care Facility

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

875 Jerusalem Avenue, Uniondale, NY 11553 (opens Google Maps) · Nassau County · (516) 572-1400· 589 certified beds · avg 454 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

What the abuse flag means →

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 30, 2025
7
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 30, 2026
$141,265
Fines, last 3 years
3.06
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · how star ratings work →

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 30, 2026 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · May 23, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Jul 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · May 23, 2025 · F-0607 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.

Why it matters: Without working prevention policies, mistreatment is more likely to happen and less likely to be caught.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Jul 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Mar 9, 2022 · F-0689

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Apr 29, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Mar 9, 2022 · F-0740

The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety.

Why it matters: A resident's untreated mental health needs can worsen and take a toll on their physical health too.

Severity (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Apr 29, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 30, 2025 · F-0689

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Nov 14, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 2, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: May 25, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 22 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated

    The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689

  2. G · Actual harm, isolated

    The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. F-0689

  3. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. F-0554

View all 22 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 30, 2026▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Sep 30, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Sep 30, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554
Sep 30, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
Sep 30, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644
Sep 30, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Sep 30, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657
Sep 30, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761
Sep 30, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
May 23, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
May 23, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607
May 22, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
Apr 2, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Apr 2, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Apr 2, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550
Apr 2, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Apr 2, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657
Apr 2, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693
Apr 2, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Mar 9, 2022▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Mar 9, 2022▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, patternThe facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · F-0740
Mar 9, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (7 → 8).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 3
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 1

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202232K ▲
202481G ▲
2025103J ▲
202611J ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

How to file a complaint about care →

3 fines totaling $141,265, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Sep 30, 2025Fine$14,777
May 23, 2025Fine$113,140
Apr 2, 2024Fine$13,348
Apr 2, 2024Payment Denial92 days from Jul 2, 2024

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityNew York averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.06
New York average: 3.58
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.66
New York average: 0.68
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.63
New York average: 3.13
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityNew York avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.063.583.95bottom 29% in New York; bottom 16% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.660.680.69top 36% in New York; top 40% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.633.133.50bottom 25% in New York; bottom 13% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.380.480.48top 47% in New York; bottom 48% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)15.740.345.8top 2% in New York; top 1% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)22.039.842.9top 13% in New York; top 17% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 2.79, RN 0.61, weekend 2.40.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (2.79 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for A Holly Patterson Extended Care Facility. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

  • Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
  • Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
  • Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

Government - State

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Cohen, SteveIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Deluca, MichaelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Gallo, VictorIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Heatley, RobertIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2015
Kumar, KrishanIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Maher, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2015
Marie-Hanson, JemmaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Martello, Greg-PatrickIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Mirotznik, MichaelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Politi, VictorIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Reed, LindaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Rehman, AsifIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Sussman, DavidIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Venditto, JohnIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Zucaro, AndrewIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015
Zysman, WarrenIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2015

All 16 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
  • "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
  • "What mental health services do you provide on-site, and who delivers them?"
  • "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
  • "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
  • "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
  • "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the New York midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 16% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 16 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 165 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Hempstead Park Nursing Home1.4 miHempstead, NY★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Townhouse Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing1.6 miUniondale, NY★★★☆☆3/5
Mayfair Care Center1.7 miHempstead, NY★☆☆☆☆2/5
Fulton Commons Care Center INC1.8 miEast Meadow, NY★★☆☆☆2/5
Belair Care Center INC2.3 miBellmore, NY★★★★★4/5
Nassau Rehabilitation & Nursing Center2.3 miHempstead, NY★★★☆☆3/5
South Shore Rehabilitation and Nursing Center3.1 miFreeport, NY★★★☆☆2/5
Meadowbrook Care Center3.1 miFreeport, NY★★★★★4/5
Mount Sinai South Nassau T C U3.9 miOceanside, NY★★★★★5/5
Rockville Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center,4.1 miRockville Center, NY★★★★★4/5
The Grand Pavilion for Rehab & Nursing at Rockvill4.2 miRockville Centre, NY★★★☆☆2/5
Garden Care Center4.9 miFranklin Square, NY★★★★★4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Nassau, NY — 36 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Uniondale →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 335023.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details