LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	17. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On November 19, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed with prejudice the class action, James E. Fisher v. Suffolk Bancorp, et al., No. 11 Civ. 5114 (SJ), filed in the District Court on October 20, 2011. The complaint alleged 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 sought damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s Common Stock between March 12, 2010 and August 10, 2011 (“Class Members”). The Company denied and continues to deny each and all of the allegations alleged by the plaintiffs in the action. In accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement and the court’s approval order, the Company’s insurer paid the sum of $2.8 million into an escrow account for the benefit of Class Members and for the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses to the lead counsel in the action. 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. 33538/2011, 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 3, 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., 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 and 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 thousand which was paid by the Company’s insurer. 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.

17. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On November 19, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed with prejudice the class action, James E. Fisher v. Suffolk Bancorp, et al., No. 11 Civ. 5114 (SJ), filed in the District Court on October 20, 2011. The complaint alleged 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 sought damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s Common Stock between March 12, 2010 and August 10, 2011 (“Class Members”). The Company denied and continues to deny each and all of the allegations alleged by the plaintiffs in the action. In accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement and the court’s approval order, the Company’s insurer paid the sum of $2.8 million into an escrow account for the benefit of Class Members and for the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses to the lead counsel in the action.

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. 33538/2011, 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 3, 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., 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 and 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 thousand which was paid by the Company’s insurer.

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.