Mohammad M. Haque is an Associate in the New York office of GRSM and is a member of the Tort & Product Liability practice group. Mohammad provides a range of services to his client, including preparation of motions pertaining to complex substantive and procedural issues as well as assisting clients in developing legal strategies before the trial courts and the appellate courts.

Prior to joining GRSM, Mohammad was an Associate at a prominent insurance defense firm where he successfully defended cases before the trial courts as well as the Appellate Divisions, First and Second Departments.

Admissions

• New York

Memberships

• New York State Bar Association
• Muslim Bar Association of New York (MuBANY)

Community Involvement

Active alumni of the Ronald H. Brown Program, which offers undergraduate students of diverse backgrounds opportunities to prepare for the legal profession.

• Matter of Seon v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 159 A.D.3d 607 (1st Dept. 2018). There, Mr. Haque brought an Article 78 Petition, on behalf of his client, to annul and vacate the determination of the Respondents, who determined that Mr. Haque’s client failed to exercise due care while operating his vehicle in violation of Section 1146(c) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. By way of a three justice majority, the Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Article 78 Petition and annulled and vacated the Respondents’ determination on the basis that it was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
• Pankratov v 2935 OP, LLC, 160 A.D.3d 757 (2nd Dept. 2018). The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the lower court’s determination to grant summary judgment to Mr. Haque’s client. There, the plaintiff alleged to have fallen as a result of slipping on ice on defendant’s property. However, with the use of plaintiff’s own deposition testimony as well as applicable climatological records from the date of the accident, Mr. Haque was able to successfully argue that plaintiff’s fall resulted during an ongoing snow storm and, therefore, under the storm in progress doctrine, defendant was not liable as a matter of law.
• Ramos v Hamelburg, 161 A.D.3d 706 (1st Dept. 2018). The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court’s determination to grant Mr. Haque’s client summary judgment. There, the plaintiff alleged to sustain personal injuries when using a trampoline on defendant’s property in Pennsylvania. Mr. Haque was able to successfully argue that the substantive law of Pennsylvania is to apply and that plaintiff’s testimony elicited that she was not injured as a result of a latent condition of which she was unaware and, therefore, defendant was not liable as a matter of law.