.

Nadia Elizabeth Niazi

Portrait of Nadia Elizabeth Niazi

Nadia is a shareholder in the firm's Casualty Department where she handles all areas of general liability and medical malpractice defense litigation. She is a passionate advocate and an experienced litigator who represents her clients vigorously through all stages of litigation. She has experience in a wide range of matters including personal injury, premises liability, retail liability, automobile liability, recreation liability, and representing physicians and hospitals through all phases of litigation. These cases range from slip and falls, property damage, motor vehicle accidents, construction defects to professional liability matters involving major healthcare facilities/workers. Nadia has brought cases to successful resolution through trial, mediation, arbitration, and motion practice.  

Nadia began her career with an insurance defense firm in Westchester County after successfully completing a law school internship with the firm. Through this position, Nadia obtained critical training from the insurance defense perspective. Thereafter, Nadia worked with another well known Westchester County firm specializing in class action litigation where she honed her federal practice skills.  In that position, Nadia successfully defeated many F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss and participated in lengthy arbitration hearings, representing underpaid workers against a nationally recognized pizza franchise who were in violation of state minimum wage laws. 

Nadia mainly practices in the New York City metropolitan area, Rockland, Orange and Putnam counties in both state and federal courts.

Raised in Westchester County and currently residing in New Rochelle, Nadia remains an active member of her community. After graduating from Iona College, she spent several years serving as an assistant coach to the college’s Mock Trial team where she helped college students develop their litigation and oral argument skills.  During her tenure at Iona, Nadia was a member of the Mock Trial team, where she participated in various national competitions against Ivy league colleges, such as Yale and Harvard, and during these tournaments earned numerous individual achievement awards.

Nadia recently organized two successful toy drives for the Maria Fareri Children’s Hospital in Valhalla, New York and the Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of New York. Through these toy drives, Nadia raised thousands of dollars in monetary donations to benefit the families whose children were in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and over 750 individual toys to be donated among the hospitals’ inpatients.  These donation drives were particularly near and dear to Nadia’s heart, as her daughter spent several months as a NICU patient at Morgan Stanley.  Nadia looks forward to making this an annual holiday tradition with the assistance of her Marshall Dennehey Westchester County colleagues as well as her New Rochelle community.

    • The Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University (J.D., cum laude, 2013)
    • Iona University (B.A., cum laude, 2010)
    • New York, 2014
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 2016
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 2016
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch©, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2022-2025)
    • Hudson Valley Magazine, Top Lawyer (2022)
    • Northeastern Casualty and Worker’s Compensation Litigation Trends, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, June 2024.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the owner, dismissing plaintiff's case in a snow and ice slip and fall action, where the plaintiff failed to establish creation or notice, and therefore, could not prove any negligence on the part of the condominium.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the owner, a condominium unit, dismissing two infant plaintiffs’ negligence claims who were involved in a cycling accident on the property.  This was a high exposure case which verdict value exceeding the seven-figure range based upon the injuries sustained and the condominium unit was the only “deep pocket” among the named defendants.  After completing discovery, we moved for summary dismissal on behalf of the condominium unit arguing that the condominium unit did not owe a duty to plaintiffs under the facts alleged, no defective condition existed to impose a finding of negligence against them, and further argued plaintiffs failed to prove creation and notice.  In a thorough decision, the Court concurred with our arguments and dismissed the claims entirely against the condominium owner.
    • Obtained summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against a homeowner’s association following a trip and fall in a concealed pit after the plaintiff walked through a construction zone.  We obtained summary dismissal of this case based upon plaintiff’s failure to prove creation or notice on behalf of the HOA.  This case was appealed by plaintiff to the Second Department.  We appeared on behalf of the HOA for oral argument before the Second Department in December of 2019, where she led the defendants in opposing plaintiff’s appeal.  In July 2020, the Second Department rendered a decision which upheld the lower court and affirmed the summary dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint against the HOA.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.