LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	10. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On September 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Suffolk dismissed with prejudice the shareholder derivative action, Susan Forbush v. Edgar F. Goodale, et al., No. 33538/11, filed in the Supreme Court on October 28, 2011, and approved the settlement among the parties to that action along with another shareholder of the Company who had made a litigation demand on the Company. On October 4, 2013, as requested by the parties in accordance with their settlement agreement, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed with prejudice the shareholder derivative action, Robert J. Levy v. J. Gordon Huszagh, et al., No. 11 Civ. 3321 (JS), filed in the District Court on July 11, 2011. These derivative actions alleged that the 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. The Company denied and continues to deny each and all of the allegations alleged by the plaintiffs in the actions. The terms of the settlement require the Company to implement various corporate governance enhancements, and, as part of the settlement, plaintiff’s counsel was awarded fees and expenses in the amount of $600,000 which was paid by the Company’s insurer. 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 (the “Class Members”). On October 15, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 8, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the action, subject to the approval of the court, and on April 10, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion requesting an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, directing dissemination and publication of notice of the proposed settlement to Class Members, and scheduling a hearing on whether the settlement should be finally approved by the court. On July 18, 2013, the court granted the motion. On August 1, 2013, in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement and the court’s preliminary approval order, the Company’s insurer paid the sum of $2.8 million to an escrow account for the benefit of Class Members. A final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for November 13, 2013. Management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse impact on the consolidated financial statements. On August 12, 2013, the Company was informed that the SEC closed its previously disclosed investigation of the Company. No action was taken against the Company. The SEC’s New York regional office had formally requested certain loan files, other records and information from the Company but had not asserted that any federal securities law violation occurred. The Company assesses its liabilities and contingencies in connection with legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. For those matters where it is probable that the Company will incur losses and the amounts of the losses can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an expense and corresponding liability in its consolidated financial statements. We have concluded that an amount for such a loss contingency is not to be accrued at this time.

10. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On September 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Suffolk dismissed with prejudice the shareholder derivative action, Susan Forbush v. Edgar F. Goodale, et al., No. 33538/11, filed in the Supreme Court on October 28, 2011, and approved the settlement among the parties to that action along with another shareholder of the Company who had made a litigation demand on the Company. On October 4, 2013, as requested by the parties in accordance with their settlement agreement, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed with prejudice the shareholder derivative action, Robert J. Levy v. J. Gordon Huszagh, et al., No. 11 Civ. 3321 (JS), filed in the District Court on July 11, 2011. These derivative actions alleged that the 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. The Company denied and continues to deny each and all of the allegations alleged by the plaintiffs in the actions. The terms of the settlement require the Company to implement various corporate governance enhancements, and, as part of the settlement, plaintiff’s counsel was awarded fees and expenses in the amount of $600,000 which was paid by the Company’s insurer.

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 (the “Class Members”). On October 15, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 8, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the action, subject to the approval of the court, and on April 10, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion requesting an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, directing dissemination and publication of notice of the proposed settlement to Class Members, and scheduling a hearing on whether the settlement should be finally approved by the court. On July 18, 2013, the court granted the motion. On August 1, 2013, in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement and the court’s preliminary approval order, the Company’s insurer paid the sum of $2.8 million to an escrow account for the benefit of Class Members. A final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for November 13, 2013. Management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse impact on the consolidated financial statements.

On August 12, 2013, the Company was informed that the SEC closed its previously disclosed investigation of the Company. No action was taken against the Company. The SEC’s New York regional office had formally requested certain loan files, other records and information from the Company but had not asserted that any federal securities law violation occurred.

The Company assesses its liabilities and contingencies in connection with legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. For those matters where it is probable that the Company will incur losses and the amounts of the losses can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an expense and corresponding liability in its consolidated financial statements. We have concluded that an amount for such a loss contingency is not to be accrued at this time.