Carlia Brady, Middlesex County Superior Court judge. Courtesy photo

Judicial ethics officials are seeking to remove Superior Court Judge Carlia Brady from the bench for her failure to notify police of the whereabouts of her fugitive ex-boyfriend, according to a presentment that was made public Tuesday.

Notwithstanding her acquittal on criminal charges stemming from her 2013 arrest, Brady's conduct represents a significant violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct said in its presentment. Brady's actions "irreparably impugned" her integrity in a manner that "renders her continued service on the bench untenable," reads the presentment filed with the state Supreme Court.

The ACJC has accused Brady of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.1, which requires judges to observe high standards of conduct; Canon 2, Rule 2.1, which requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; Canon 2, Rule 2.3(A), which requires judges to avoid lending the prestige of their office to advance private interests; and Canon 5, Rule 5.1(A), which requires judges to conduct their extrajudicial activities in a manner that would not demean the judicial office.

The Supreme Court granted Brady permission on Tuesday to file a motion to  dismiss or modify the ACJC presentment. Brady was given until Oct. 16 to file her motion, and the ACJC has until Oct. 29 to file a response. The court set oral argument on Brady's motion for Nov. 12.

Police in her hometown of Woodbridge charged Brady with official misconduct and harboring a fugitive after she reported that her car was missing. At that time, authorities were looking for her live-in boyfriend, Jason Prontnicki, in connection with the armed robbery of a pharmacy. The official-misconduct charge was dismissed in a March 2016 decision affirmed by the Appellate Division in October 2017. The hindering charge was withdrawn after the Appellate Division ruled that Prontnicki, the only prosecution witness, could not be compelled to testify at Brady's trial.

Brady was suspended from her judicial post without pay in June 2013 and reinstated to the bench in March 2018.

The ACJC called for the removal of Brady after obtaining testimony from an expert for the committee, psychiatrist Carla Rodgers, who said Brady is "consciously trying to manipulate her answers to effect the greatest level of positive personal virtue." Brady's current mental state is one of "conscious manipulation" to avoid any responsibility for her conduct when interacting with the Woodbridge police, Rodgers said.

The ACJC found Rodgers' testimony more credible than that of psychologist Peter Oropeza, who presented expert testimony on behalf of Brady. Oropeza said Brady's interactions with police were "significantly impacted" by a series of "stressors" that included shock from learning for the first time that Prontnicki had been charged with a violent crime, sleep deprivation, concern about her missing car, lack of food, hormonal changes due to fertility treatments she had recently undergone, the possibility that she might be pregnant, and a history of prior domestic abuse during her first marriage 15 years earlier.

Those stressors caused her to think irrationally, Oropeza testified. But the ACJC said Oropeza's testimony conflicts with Brady's testimony and the facts of the case.

The ACJC also heard testimony from its own forensic audio expert and from Brady's expert concerning Brady's claim that the Woodbridge police made modifications to two voice mail messages she left the department concerning Prontnicki's whereabouts. The ACJC said its expert, Bruce Koenig, was more credible than Brady's expert, Arlo West.

Evidence demonstrates that Brady "attempted to evade her ethical obligations when interacting with the [Woodbridge Township Police Department] about Mr. Prontnicki by offering the police intentionally vague and irrelevant information about his known whereabouts to appear cooperative while willfully withholding relevant information," the ACJC said.

"Given the egregious nature of this misconduct and its deleterious effect on the public's confidence in Respondent's integrity and ability to serve credibly, Respondent's removal from judicial office is required. We are convinced no remedy short of removal will restore the public's confidence in the Judiciary as an institution of integrity committed to the rule of law," the committee said in its presentment.

The presentment comes nearly two weeks after Brady filed a wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution suit against the Woodbridge police in federal court.

Brady's attorney in the ACJC case, Raymond Brown of Scarinci & Hollenbeck in Lyndhurst, did not respond to a request for comment.