Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
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 the directors of Suffolk and a former officer of Suffolk. Suffolk 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 Suffolk'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, Suffolk and the directors filed a motion to dismiss the 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 the directors of Suffolk and a former officer of Suffolk. Suffolk was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims that are substantially similar to those asserted in the Levy action. 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 Suffolk, its chief executive officer, and a former chief financial officer of Suffolk. 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, Suffolk'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 Suffolk's common stock between March 12, 2010 and August 10, 2011. 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. Suffolk believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims filed against it in these lawsuits and, to the extent that these actions proceed, Suffolk intends to defend itself vigorously. Suffolk has been informed that the SEC's New York regional office is conducting an informal inquiry to determine whether there have been violations of the federal securities laws in connection with Suffolk's financial reporting. The SEC has not asserted that any federal securities law violation has occurred. Suffolk believes it is in compliance with all federal securities laws and believes it has cooperated fully with the SEC's informal inquiry. Although the ultimate outcome of the informal inquiry cannot be ascertained at this time, based upon information that presently is available to it, Suffolk does not believe that the informal inquiry, when resolved, will have a material adverse effect on Suffolk's results of operations or financial condition.

(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 the directors of Suffolk and a former officer of Suffolk. Suffolk 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 Suffolk'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, Suffolk and the directors filed a motion to dismiss the 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 the directors of Suffolk and a former officer of Suffolk. Suffolk was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims that are substantially similar to those asserted in the Levy action.

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 Suffolk, its chief executive officer, and a former chief financial officer of Suffolk. 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, Suffolk'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 Suffolk's common stock between March 12, 2010 and August 10, 2011.

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. Suffolk believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims filed against it in these lawsuits and, to the extent that these actions proceed, Suffolk intends to defend itself vigorously.

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