ZIP code
10280
in New York, New YorkPopulation 8,933
73.87/ 100
Ranked #101 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 0.4%)
Ranked #20 of 1,730 New York ZIPs (top 1.2%)
Ranked #42 of 853 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ ZIPs (top 5.0%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
Median household income
$206,299
in the top 1.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Obesity
14.8%
in the bottom 0.05% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Binge drinking
24.7%
in the top 0.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report binge drinking — five or more drinks on one occasion for men, four or more for women.
Full methodology ›Households without a vehicle
80.4%
in the top 0.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with no vehicle available.
Full methodology ›Walkability
360 intersections/sq mi
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
19.6%
in the bottom 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
3.7%
in the bottom 0.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
3.2%
in the bottom 0.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
2.9%
in the bottom 0.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
6.9%
in the bottom 0.06% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Cross-source signals
Combined exposures in this ZIP
More than one environmental exposure stands out in this ZIP. Each is established independently and shown on its own above; they are grouped here for context — not because one causes the other.
This area ranks among the highest 10% of US ZIP codes for both flood exposure and the share of households without a vehicle.
See the full flooding, evacuation & humid-heat analysis →
The read
On the composite measure, ZIP 10280, one of several in New York, New York stands in the top 0.4% healthiest ZIPs nationally (101st) and the top 1.2% of New York (20th).
A profile of give and take, with clear readings each way: household income registers in the top 1.0% nationally, and modeled obesity lies in the bottom 0.05% nationally. Walkability is in the top 0.4% nationally, and modeled high blood pressure registers in the bottom 1.2% nationally. Modeled transportation lies in the bottom 0.8% nationally, utility shutoff is in the bottom 0.9% nationally, and hearing disability registers in the bottom 0.8% nationally. Modeled cognitive disability lies in the bottom 0.06% nationally. On the other side, modeled binge drinking is in the top 0.6% nationally, and households without a vehicle registers in the top 0.4% nationally.
Set beside the wider area around it, outer-floodplain exposure runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. ZIP 10004, just across the boundary, ranks better overall among the ZIPs nearby. Beyond the headline readings, the area also sits on the healthier half of the national range on at least seven of the ten good-life measures tracked here, from quiet and green space to nearby care, a combination reached by about one in twenty-five US ZIP codes.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts. Compare it against the US, this state and the New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 99%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 98%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 92%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 84%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 96%
8%
Disability
in the top 0.05%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 72%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 51%
14%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 6%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 98%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 98%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 66%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 84%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 82%
8%
Disability
in the top 0.3%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 63%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 43%
14%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
in the bottom 0.00%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 98%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 88%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 68%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 73%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 65%
11%
Disability
in the top 0.8%
7%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 51%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 49%
5%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
in the bottom 1.0%
5%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
10004
New Yorkshares a border
Score 73.96
Closest healthier
10279
New Yorkabout 0.2 mi away
Score 75.80
Similar health profile
35756
Alabama99% similar profile
Score 63.59
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 15.4% | 14.1–17.1 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 19.6% | 18.1–21.7 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 6.6% | 6.1–7.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 8.7% | 7.9–9.7 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 2.8% | 2.5–3.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 2.3% | 1.9–2.7 |
| Depression among adults | 18.1% | 16.5–20.2 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 5.1% | 4.6–5.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 33.6% | 31.6–36.3 |
| Obesity among adults | 14.8% | 13.0–17.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 1.5% | 1.3–1.7 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 5.6% | 4.6–6.8 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 2.8% | 2.3–3.5 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 69.3% | 66.7–72.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.0% | 77.0–81.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 91.8% | 90.6–92.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 69.3% | 66.1–72.5 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 76.3% | 74.1–78.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 83.0% | 78.7–86.6 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 24.7% | 22.6–27.4 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 4.8% | 3.8–6.1 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 11.6% | 10.2–13.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.9% | 28.9–34.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 7.8% | 6.8–9.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 12.2% | 10.9–13.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 7.3% | 6.5–8.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 6.9% | 6.0–8.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 14.3% | 12.8–16.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 2.9% | 2.6–3.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 3.5% | 3.1–4.1 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 5.5% | 4.8–6.4 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 1.4% | 1.3–1.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 2.0% | 1.8–2.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 22.5% | 19.9–25.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 5.8% | 4.7–7.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 3.6% | 2.8–4.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 6.1% | 5.1–7.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 3.7% | 3.2–4.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 35.0% | 31.7–38.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 3.2% | 2.7–3.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NY median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 3.7% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 9.5% (2.5–22.6%) n=1,734 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 3.7% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 5.0% (0.0–13.1%) n=1,734 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 0.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 7.1% (1.2–17.5%) n=1,743 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 87.2% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.8% (13.9–62.1%) n=1,743 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 1.6% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.4% (0.0–9.7%) n=1,730 |
| Households without a vehicle | 80.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 5.7% (0.0–28.9%) n=1,730 |
| Broadband subscription | 94.9% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 91.5% (81.1–98.3%) n=1,730 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 42.4% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 27.2% (14.2–45.5%) n=1,730 |
| Homeownership rate | 34.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.2% (40.9–94.8%) n=1,730 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.4% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.0% (0.0–6.6%) n=1,730 |
| Foreign-born population | 29.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.8% (0.0–28.7%) n=1,746 |
| Single-parent households | 45.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 54.0% (36.7–74.5%) n=1,716 |
| Population 65+ | 8.4% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.0% (12.0–33.2%) n=1,746 |
| Median age | 41.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.5 yr (34.6–56.1) n=1,733 |
| Median household income | $206,299 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $81,837 ($55,470–$145,610) n=1,626 |
| Median home value | $976,300 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $247,700 ($121,180–$801,380) n=1,629 |
| Median gross rent | $3,501 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,162 ($782–$2,359) n=1,367 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NY median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled. | |||
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured