## Facts

- Sidney Ramdin died leaving a will that included article third (b) addressing his interest in certain real property.
- Article third (b) directed that the interest “shall be distributed in the absolute joint discretion” of his sisters, Bhanmattie Hulasiya and Rajmattie Jailall, to whomever they “jointly deem fit,” and stated their joint decision would be “unimpe[c]able for all purposes.”
- Two of the decedent’s sons commenced a will construction proceeding seeking a determination of the construction and validity of article third (b).
- The Surrogate’s Court referred the matter to a referee to hear and report.
- The referee concluded article third (b) was a defective disposition of the decedent’s property.
- The Surrogate’s Court confirmed the referee’s conclusion.
- Hulasiya, as executrix, moved (in substance) to vacate the portion of the referee’s report finding article third (b) defective; the Surrogate’s Court denied that relief, and she appealed from that part of the decree.

## Issues

1. Whether a will provision granting two named individuals absolute joint discretion to distribute specified property “to whomsoever they jointly deem fit” is an invalid “defective disposition” or a valid testamentary disposition under New York law.
2. Whether the Surrogate’s Court erred in confirming the referee’s determination that article third (b) failed as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the decree insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs.
- The court granted the executrix’s request to vacate the portion of the referee’s report deeming article third (b) a defective disposition.
- The court disaffirmed that portion of the referee’s report.
- The court held article third (b) was not a defective disposition and should be given effect.

## Legal Principles

- The cardinal rule of will construction is to carry out the testator’s intent.
- Interpretive rules are subordinate to effectuating the testator’s actual purpose, so far as consistent with law and public policy.
- A provision conferring discretionary authority on identified persons to determine the recipients of specified property may be upheld when the testator’s intent to confer operative dispositive authority is clear and the provision does not violate law or public policy.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the decedent’s expressed plan by treating article third (b) as a valid testamentary disposition that vested the named sisters with joint discretionary authority to select the distributee(s) of the specified real property interest, and it rejected the Surrogate’s Court’s confirmation of the referee’s “defective disposition” finding.


Matter of Ramdin, 11 A.D.3d 698 (2d Dep’t 2004)