Maple Court Homes

Pros

• Good spot to watch 4th of July fireworks.
• Really nice apartments
• My best friend lives here, very nice apartments
• Nice apartments
• It would be a very nice place to live if the landlords actually took care of it.
• Nice apartments place is clean and looks great
• Best in the city
• The apartments are excellent for subsidy

Cons

• They lie to get people out of apartments and even change the locks to prevent access to tenants' belongings.
• They kicked the reviewer, their partner, and their baby, despite them doing nothing wrong.
• They neglect maintenance, leaving units with bugs, mouse droppings, wasp infestations, and a hole in the ceiling with leaking liquid.
• They are extremely rude and dismissive, including screaming at applicants and refusing proper cleaning or repairs.
• They are rude and incompetent and rarely fix problems.
• They misrepresent cleanliness; residents report cigarette smoke and filthy conditions despite claims of cleanliness.
• They are rude, neglectful, and money-hungry; smoke-filled apartments and fire hazards; rent is described as highway robbery.
• The pricing for subsidized housing is almost robbery.
• Management is slow to respond; the building has paper-thin walls, loud neighbors, and doors that must be slammed; locks are problematic.
• Temperature management is poor; elderly residents get cold, and 70 degrees is not enough in winter.

Review

The collection of comments paints a complicated and often troubling portrait of life at these apartments. On one hand, several readers acknowledge that the units can be appealing: some describe the buildings as "really nice" and "good spots to watch the 4th of July fireworks," with others calling the properties "clean" and "best in the city." Yet these positive sentiments are frequently undercut by a wave of complaints about management, maintenance, and safety. The overall impression is inconsistent expectations and a pattern of problematic experiences that leave many tenants feeling unsettled and disrespected.

A dominant thread in the feedback centers on maintenance and living conditions. Multiple reviews recount severe infestations and cleanliness issues that were not adequately addressed. One account describes "piles of bugs, mouse droppings in kitchen drawers and cabinets, and an infestation of wasps," accompanied by a gaping hole in the ceiling with leaking liquid and wasps emerging from it. In another, residents report cigarette smoke and a "smoke-filled apartment" atmosphere, along with claims that apartment expectations of cleanliness were untruthful. The frequency and severity of these problems - wasp and bug problems, leaks, and evidence of pests - are presented as persistent rather than episodic, with maintenance seemingly unable to keep up or provide timely solutions.

Communication and treatment from management further compound the dissatisfaction. Several reviews allege rude, dismissive, or hostile behavior from landlords and staff. One particularly stark example describes the landlord screaming at the husband when he inquired about a three-bedroom, illustrating a pattern of hostile interactions. Others describe a general sense that management is unresponsive or incompetent, with promises of maintenance never materializing and long delays in addressing basic issues. The sense of being ignored or dismissed appears repeatedly, contributing to a climate of frustration and mistrust toward the property management team.

Security and tenant rights emerge as another major concern. One account alleges that the management would "go in and change the locks on the door so you can't get your stuff," a claim that, if true, would raise serious questions about safety, access, and legal procedure. Several reviewers express fear of eviction or punitive treatment for raising concerns, and one narrative notes that neighbors' noise complaints went unaddressed, leaving tenants feeling trapped in a building where management will not intervene. The combination of alleged lockouts, aggressive management, and unresolved issues about who is responsible for repairs appears to exacerbate stress and insecurity for residents.

Noise, temperature control, and overall livability are also highlighted as significant pain points. Reviewers describe paper-thin walls and noisy neighbors, with one person noting that doors must be slammed to close properly, which makes acoustics even worse. Temperature regulation is another grievance; residents feel that the building's climate control is inadequate, with a fixed upper limit on heating that fails to keep elderly tenants comfortable during cold winters. The persistent noise and poor insulation contribute to a sense that the apartments are not a comfortable or safe place to reside, even when the unit itself might be somewhere people want to live.

Finances and the economics of subsidized housing feature in a number of comments as well. Phrases like "the pricing for subsidized housing is almost robbery" and "rent is highway robbery" appear alongside more neutral notes of "best in the city" or "nice apartments." This juxtaposition suggests a tension between the perceived quality of the units and the financial burden they place on residents, particularly those relying on subsidies. The most pointed criticism is that the bills and charges do not align with the lived reality inside the units, especially when maintenance problems persist but charges for rent and associated costs continue unabated.

In sum, the reviews present a mixed but heavily skewed picture: the apartments themselves are described as appealing, well-located, and visually attractive at times, with some residents enjoying the environment enough to call it "great" or "excellent," or to remark on clean appearances. Yet the experience for many tenants is undermined by rampant maintenance failures, pest problems, rude or unresponsive management, questionable security practices, and affordability concerns that together create a precarious and often stressful living situation. For prospective renters, the messages converge on a cautious approach: the space might be worth considering if you are prepared for potential delays in service, a strong emphasis on documenting issues, and a willingness to navigate challenging management dynamics.

Hospitals

• Saint James Mercy Hospital (0.1 miles)
• Southern Tier Womens Health (0.2 miles)
• St James Mercy Hospital (0.2 miles)
• Integral Medical Services (1.2 miles)
• Va Medical Center (16 miles)
• Bath VA Medical Center (16 miles)
• Arnot Health (16.9 miles)

Physicians

• Naga G V (0.1 miles)
• Renuka Mehta MD (0.1 miles)
• Western New York Med-Psych (0.1 miles)
• Canisteo Valley Family Practice (0.7 miles)
• Hornell Hearing Center (0.8 miles)
• Pinnacle Family Medicine (0.9 miles)
• Express Care (0.9 miles)

Parks

• James Street Park (0.3 miles)
• James Street Park (1.1 miles)
• Almond Lions Community Park (4.6 miles)
• Pulteney Park (17.4 miles)
• Angelica Park Circle Historic District (18.3 miles)

Transportation

• U-Haul Neighborhood Dealer (0.4 miles)
• County Cabs (1.7 miles)
• Enterprise Rent-A-Car (3.6 miles)

Places of Worship

• St Anne's Church (0.5 miles)
• Saint Ann Parish (0.9 miles)
• United Presbyterian Church (1.1 miles)
• Hornell Bible Church (1.2 miles)
• Gospel Tabernacle (2 miles)
• United Methodist Church (3.9 miles)
• Alfred Assembly of Christians (4 miles)

Restaurants

• The Udder Place (0.6 miles)
• The Max (0.6 miles)
• Marino's Restaurant (0.7 miles)
• Burger King (1.1 miles)
• Andy's Sub Shop (1.1 miles)
• Taco Bell (1.1 miles)
• Billy Schu's Food Bar (1.1 miles)

Pharmacies

• Walgreens (0.7 miles)
• Walmart Pharmacy (2.5 miles)
• Wegmans (2.5 miles)
• Rite Aid (16.8 miles)
• Walgreens (16.8 miles)
• Top's Markets (16.9 miles)
• The Village Pharmacy (18.1 miles)

Theaters

• Spotlight of Hornell (1 miles)
• Spotlight Theater Of Hornell (1.1 miles)

Cafes

• The Classy Cafe & Deli (1.1 miles)
• Village Cafe (5.5 miles)
• Honey Bee's Kitchen (6 miles)
• Terra Cotta Coffee House (7.8 miles)
• Cafe At The Pond (18.2 miles)
• The Canteen (18.4 miles)