The way the court worded the ruling when they overturned the Special Master might have played a roll. Keep in mind the Court ruling didn't give the Legislature the right to do whatever they wanted with redistricting. It stated it should go back to the IRC and done within the 2014 law, not drawn by the courts. While an argument can be made they went beyond the 2% rule, they largely stayed within the confines of the 2014 law. My guess is they felt making small changes and giving them a little bit of an advantage here and there was better than risking getting it overturned and not being able to even make small changes to the IRC map.
The 2% law was a problem because their options were ignoring its clear letter, or repealing it the same day or week they passed a map.
The "compromise" was similar to the Ohio legislative maps. The majority party offered the largely powerless minority party concessions that did not threaten the majority's core interests in exchange for the minority endorsing an otherwise illegal map as legal. The latter would provide cover for a court to then cite the minority's bipartisan endorsement as evidence the map could not possibly have been drawn with partisan intent.
This requires both sides to be very aware of where they stood. In Ohio, Democrats concluded that they had no chance to control the State Supreme Court for the next decade, and therefore their leverage was giving solace to the Justices' self-respect. It wasn't much, but they got more State Senators and State Representatives from the deal than they currently hold or held much of the last decade. They traded that for being able to gain seats when they were in no position to get more.
Republicans accepted that Democrats needed
1. Protection of all incumbents
2. A Net gain in the 2023-2024 redistricting cycle nationally
And conceded all of it. In exchange for things Democrats would find convenient
1. Legal certainty about the map
2. Providing a reserve to leadership/Hochul on anything they will need in the event they have issues with the left
3. The self-respect of members of the Court of Appeals who probably really didn't want to have to justify a totally hackish decision(upholding a map passed within 24hrs of reversing the 2% rule with an extremely incriminating paper trail) even if gun to the head a number would have
They got the Democrats to concede things that were nice but not vital
1. Maximizing the number of Democratic seats at the expense of leaving much of Long Island, Staten Island and other swing areas in the state legislature, feeling unrepresented and identifying the Democratic party with the sort of urban progressive who would be in those seats if drawn into the city
2. Marginally increasing Jefferies chances of having a 2-seat majority at the cost of gutting the influence of the NY members in the GOP caucus, with it unclear they were either necessary or a majority within that margin would help the state much
