But that was just the beginning. The oddity grew upon seeing, toward the start of the first of three separate decisions from the five-justice panel, that “none of the three decisions garners a majority.”.....

That first opinion, by Justice Peter Moulton joined by Justice Dianne Renwick, said that those two justices thought New York’s attorney general acted lawfully in bringing the fraud case. But they said that ordering the defendants to “pay nearly half a billion dollars” to New York amounts to an “excessive” and unconstitutional fine.

The second opinion, by Justice John Higgitt joined by Justice Llinét Rosado, agreed that James had the authority to bring the suit but said they thought a new trial was warranted.

The third opinion, by Justice David Friedman, argued for dismissing the case outright in Trump’s favor.

So, we have three opinions saying different things. How did the panel attempt to come to a resolution?....

Though they thought a new trial was needed, their opinion said that “after much consideration, with great reluctance and with acknowledgement of the incongruity of the act,” they agreed to join the bottom line of Moulton and Renwick’s opinion that tosses out the massive financial penalty as well as sanctions on Trump defense lawyers, while otherwise upholding the case in James’ favor.

Citing the “truly extraordinary circumstances here, where none of the writings enjoys the support of a majority,” they said the parties “must have a decision on this matter and, concomitantly, the option of further review of this matter by the Court of Appeals.”....

James, who has denied any wrongdoing herself, said in a statement Thursday that the appeals court “affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.” She said the court “upheld the injunctive relief we won, limiting Donald Trump and the Trump Organization officers’ ability to do business in New York. It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit.” She concluded: “We will seek appeal to the Court of Appeals and continue to protect the rights and interests of New Yorkers.”