.

Nadia Elizabeth Niazi

Shareholder

NENiazi@mdwcg.com

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

Event

Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC)

Sean and Alex will present, "Life Care Plans: From Low Impact to Policy Limits," focusing on the history and expanding use of life care plans in litigation and their ability to transform low impact injury claims to disproportionate high value claims. By focusing on the limitations of life care planners, Florida's tort-reform on medical damages, and the Daubert standard, extraordinary life care plans with inflated future medical care recommendations can be defended.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.