Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	(11) Legal Proceedings On July 11, 2011 a shareholder derivative action, Robert J. Levy v. J. Gordon Huszagh, et al., No. 11 Civ. 3321 (JS), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against certain current and former directors of the Company and a former officer of the Company. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint seeks damages against the individual defendants in an unspecified amount, and alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making improper statements regarding the sufficiency of the Company’s allowance for loan losses and loan portfolio credit quality, and by failing to establish sufficient allowances for loan losses and to establish effective credit risk management policies. On September 30, 2011, the Company and the current and former director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 28, 2012, the court granted the motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On October 28, 2011, a separate shareholder derivative action, Susan Forbush v. Edgar F. Goodale, et al., No. 33538/11, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Suffolk, against certain current and former directors of the Company and a former officer of the Company. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims that are substantially similar to those asserted in the Levy action. On February 17, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss remains pending. On October 20, 2011, a putative shareholder class action, James E. Fisher v. Suffolk Bancorp, et al., No. 11 Civ. 5114 (SJ), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, its former chief executive officer, and a former chief financial officer of the Company. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly or recklessly making false statements about, or failing to disclose accurate information about, the Company’s financial results and condition, loan loss reserves, impaired assets, internal and disclosure controls, and banking practices. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 12, 2010 and August 10, 2011. On July 2, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss remains pending. The foregoing matters are in their preliminary phases and it is not possible to ascertain whether there is a reasonable possibility of a loss from these matters. Therefore we have concluded that an amount for a loss contingency is not to be accrued or disclosed at this time. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims filed against it in these lawsuits and, to the extent that these actions proceed, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company has been informed that the SEC’s New York regional office is conducting an inquiry to determine whether there have been violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s financial reporting. The SEC has not asserted that any federal securities law violation has occurred. The Company believes it is in compliance with all federal securities laws and believes it has cooperated fully with the SEC’s inquiry. Although the ultimate outcome of the inquiry cannot be ascertained at this time, based upon information that presently is available to it, the Company does not believe that the inquiry, when resolved, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

Legal Proceedings

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

(11) Legal Proceedings

On July 11, 2011 a shareholder derivative action, Robert J. Levy v. J. Gordon Huszagh, et al., No. 11 Civ. 3321 (JS), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against certain current and former directors of the Company and a former officer of the Company. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint seeks damages against the individual defendants in an unspecified amount, and alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making improper statements regarding the sufficiency of the Company’s allowance for loan losses and loan portfolio credit quality, and by failing to establish sufficient allowances for loan losses and to establish effective credit risk management policies. On September 30, 2011, the Company and the current and former director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 28, 2012, the court granted the motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

On October 28, 2011, a separate shareholder derivative action, Susan Forbush v. Edgar F. Goodale, et al., No. 33538/11, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Suffolk, against certain current and former directors of the Company and a former officer of the Company. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims that are substantially similar to those asserted in the Levy action. On February 17, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss remains pending.

On October 20, 2011, a putative shareholder class action, James E. Fisher v. Suffolk Bancorp, et al., No. 11 Civ. 5114 (SJ), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, its former chief executive officer, and a former chief financial officer of the Company. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly or recklessly making false statements about, or failing to disclose accurate information about, the Company’s financial results and condition, loan loss reserves, impaired assets, internal and disclosure controls, and banking practices. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 12, 2010 and August 10, 2011. On July 2, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss remains pending.

The foregoing matters are in their preliminary phases and it is not possible to ascertain whether there is a reasonable possibility of a loss from these matters. Therefore we have concluded that an amount for a loss contingency is not to be accrued or disclosed at this time. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims filed against it in these lawsuits and, to the extent that these actions proceed, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.

The Company has been informed that the SEC’s New York regional office is conducting an inquiry to determine whether there have been violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s financial reporting. The SEC has not asserted that any federal securities law violation has occurred. The Company believes it is in compliance with all federal securities laws and believes it has cooperated fully with the SEC’s inquiry. Although the ultimate outcome of the inquiry cannot be ascertained at this time, based upon information that presently is available to it, the Company does not believe that the inquiry, when resolved, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.