Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly polarized and inconsistent: many families praise individual caregivers, rehabilitation staff, and certain services, while a substantial number of reviews raise very serious concerns about neglect, safety, and sanitation. Positive comments repeatedly highlight attentive, compassionate CNAs and RNs who go above and beyond — helping with hygiene, feeding, transport to appointments, paperwork, and even funeral-arrangements. Several reviewers specifically named staff (for example, a recreation worker, Ms. Hanna) and administrators (one reviewer named Kate Costello) who they felt hired and retained good staff and provided outstanding care. Portions of the facility have been remodeled and receive praise for cleanliness, comfortable rooms, good meals with variety, and available activities such as crafts, movies, and church services. The facility is also noted as convenient and pet-friendly by some families, with flexible visiting arrangements and quick admissions that enabled family contact during critical times.
However, an extensive and recurring set of negative themes appears across many reviews. The most alarming are allegations of neglect: unanswered call bells, residents left unattended or in pain for extended periods, and examples of alarms sounding for long periods without staff response. Multiple reviewers reported staff sleeping on duty, refusal to tidy rooms, and residents not being fed — all of which represent serious care and safety failures. Several reviews describe unprofessional or abusive staff behavior, including foul language, confrontations, threats of physical harm, and reports that a staff member who was the subject of a police report remained employed. Families reported poor communication from administration, phones rarely answered, rude responses when contact was made, and claims that there is effectively no human resources oversight. There are also disturbing allegations such as an administrator hoarding clothing of deceased residents and staff smoking on the job.
Facility condition and housekeeping come up repeatedly as a mixed picture. While parts of the building are remodeled and described as clean and welcoming, other areas (most often the second floor) are characterized as old, unrenovated, dirty, and in disrepair — some reviewers using words like "slum-like." Reports of hot or stuffy environments, furniture falling apart, items left on floors, and generally messy common areas suggest inconsistent housekeeping and maintenance practices across the campus. This inconsistency appears to correlate with varied experiences of residents: some families found clean rooms and good care, while others described distressing environments and neglectful conditions.
Dining, activities, and rehabilitation services are generally a bright spot in many accounts. Several reviewers explicitly praised the cooks and food variety, and multiple families appreciated the active recreation program and the skilled rehab team. These services appear to function well in parts of the facility and are a reason some families recommend Hudson Valley Rehab for extended care or short-term rehab needs.
Management and oversight concerns are frequent and serious. Reviews describe an administration that is sometimes unavailable, unresponsive, or defensive when raised with; at least one reviewer urged state investigation and shutdown. There are multiple references to poor case management organization, maintenance workers who are rude or unprofessional, and inconsistent enforcement of policies. On the other hand, some reviewers credit specific administrators with keeping good staff and ensuring quality care, underscoring the uneven leadership experience reported by families.
Patterns and takeaways: the reviews paint a facility with two distinct experiences — one where caring, skilled staff and renovated wings provide high-quality, compassionate care, and another where neglect, unprofessional behavior, sanitation issues, safety lapses, and poor management create unacceptable risk. Because of this bifurcation, prospective residents and families should exercise caution: visit in person (including the less-visible floors), ask specific questions about staffing ratios, alarm response protocols, infection control, oxygen management, and complaint procedures, and request references from recent families. The presence of legal complaints and notifications to state authorities in some reviews warrants further verification with regulatory agencies. In summary, Hudson Valley Rehab has notable strengths in its direct caregiving, rehab services, dining, and some renovated areas, but also has multiple, serious reported weaknesses around safety, staffing consistency, sanitation, and administration that require careful investigation before placement.
