On Thursday, November 13, 2025, My Central Jersey reported that a New Jersey appellate court affirmed the denial of a lifetime pension to Carlia Brady, a former Middlesex County Superior Court judge. The decision, issued on November 12, marks the latest development in a protracted legal battle that began over a decade ago when Brady was accused of shielding her then-boyfriend, who was wanted in connection with an armed robbery.
Brady’s troubles began shortly after her appointment as a Superior Court judge in 2013, when she became the state’s first Filipino American to hold such a position. Just two months into her tenure, she was suspended from the bench following charges of official misconduct and hindering law enforcement. These charges stemmed from allegations that she provided deliberately vague information to Woodbridge police regarding the whereabouts of Jason Prontnicki, who was wanted for the armed robbery of Woods Pharmacy in Old Bridge on April 29, 2013. During the robbery, Prontnicki allegedly brandished a weapon and demanded drugs from a cashier.
Although the criminal charges against Brady were eventually dropped, the legal repercussions continued. Prontnicki, meanwhile, was released from state prison in March 2022 after serving five years and three months of a 10-year sentence.
The appellate court’s 23-page decision supported the Board of Trustees of the Judicial Retirement System’s determination that granting Brady a full pension, amounting to approximately $141,750 – three-fourths of her final $189,000 judicial salary – would constitute an “unwarranted windfall.” The court emphasized Brady’s brief time on the bench, combined with what it described as a “serious breach of public trust,” as factors outweighing her entitlement to a lifetime pension.
Following the dismissal of the criminal charges, Brady returned to the bench in March 2018. However, her return was short-lived. Two months later, the state Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct filed a complaint against her, ultimately recommending her removal from the bench after a hearing. Instead of removal, the state Supreme Court imposed a three-month suspension. Brady was not renominated for reappointment after her seven-year term concluded in 2020.
Brady served a total of 20 months on the bench before ceasing her duties in September 2019. She then began receiving temporary disability benefits until her term officially ended in April 2020. In February 2020, she applied to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for a permanent disability pension, citing post-traumatic stress disorder, Bipolar II disorder, major depression, and anxiety caused by the prosecution and subsequent removal proceedings. Brady contended that her disability was a direct result of the actions of Woodbridge law enforcement, who she claimed wrongly accused her of official misconduct.
Gov. Phil Murphy approved Brady’s request in October 2021, and she began receiving disability retirement benefits on December 1, 2021. However, her request for a retroactive retirement date of May 2020 was denied by the state Division of Pensions and Benefits, a decision that was later upheld by the State House Commission, acting as the Board of Trustees of the Judicial Retirement System.
While the board allowed Brady to retain the $189,000 in pension benefits she had received between January 2022 and April 2023 – approximately 3 ½ times her contributions to the pension system – it ultimately ruled that her pension should be forfeited as of April 1, 2023, prompting Brady to file an appeal.
The appellate court’s recent decision affirmed the forfeiture, stating that the board’s decision was lawful, supported by substantial evidence, and reasonable. The court concurred with the board’s findings that Brady had “barely begun her judicial service when she engaged in the misconduct” and that she had contributed to the pension system for only two years and four months. The court also highlighted the Supreme Court’s finding that Brady had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, demonstrated a lack of candor, and showed “little remorse” even years later.
Furthermore, the court agreed that Brady was “culpable of an egregious violation of judicial standards by elevating her personal relationship over her public duties.” The board also emphasized Brady’s continued insistence that “she had no obligation to advise law enforcement of the location of the criminal fugitive, demonstrating a patent lack of understanding of the role of a judicial officer.”
Separate from these proceedings, Brady’s civil suit against the Woodbridge Police Department remains pending in federal court, while her suit against the judiciary and other state officials was dismissed in 2024.
Source: My Central Jersey
