People v. Arzon

Supreme Court of New York, Criminal Term, New York County · 1978 · Criminal Law

92 Misc. 2d 739 (1978)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawproximate causedepraved indifferencefelony murderforeseeabilityintervening causearsonrecklessness

Facts

The defendant admitted that he deliberately ignited a couch on the fifth floor of an abandoned wood-frame tenement in a crowded neighborhood in order to destroy the building so that "winos" and "junkies" could no longer use it. He stated that he had seen three or four persons on the first floor and passed other people while leaving, so the building was abandoned but not necessarily unoccupied. Firefighters responded to the severe fifth-floor blaze, but while withdrawing they were enveloped by dense smoke from a separate arson fire on the second floor. The combination of the two fires made evacuation extremely hazardous, and Fireman Martin Celic was injured and later died.

Issue

Whether the Grand Jury evidence was sufficient to support second-degree murder based on reckless conduct under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, and felony murder, where the defendant set one fire but a second independent fire also contributed to the firefighter's death. More specifically, the question was whether the defendant's fire created a grave risk to human life and was a sufficiently direct, foreseeable cause of the death.

Rule

For homicide liability, the prosecution must show that the defendant's conduct was an actual cause of death in the sense that it forged a link in the chain of causes that brought about the death, and that the ultimate harm should have been foreseen as being reasonably related to the defendant's acts. The defendant's conduct need not be the sole or exclusive cause of death; an intervening independent force does not break causation if the defendant's act was a sufficiently direct cause and placed the victim in a position of particular vulnerability. Conduct rises from mere recklessness to depraved indifference murder when, under the circumstances, it demonstrates a wanton and depraved indifference to human life.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Newark, Marcus Velez broke into a boarded-up wooden apartment house and lit a mattress on the top floor to drive away the squatters he had seen coming in and out that evening. The blaze spread quickly, and a neighboring occupied duplex caught fire before firefighters arrived.

If a resident of the duplex dies in the fire, which is the strongest basis for charging Marcus with second-degree murder under a depraved-indifference theory?

Explanation. The majority opinion treats deliberately setting a severe fire in a wood-frame structure in a crowded area, while aware people are present or likely present, as conduct that may rise above mere recklessness to depraved indifference to human life. The actor need not specifically intend the death, and a structure described as abandoned is not the same as unoccupied when the defendant knows people use it.