Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/suffolkbancorp/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Suffolk Bancorp (“Suffolk” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: SUBK) between March 12, 2010 and August 10, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at email@example.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/suffolkbancorp/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Suffolk and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Suffolk is a bank holding company with one direct wholly-owned subsidiary, Suffolk County National Bank (the “Bank”), a nationally chartered commercial bank that operates 30 full-service offices throughout Suffolk County, New York. The Company maintains its headquarters in Riverhead, New York. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company’s financial results were artificially inflated due to the material understatement of Suffolk’s loan loss reserves; (ii) that the Company’s financial results were artificially inflated due to a failure to recognize its impaired assets; (iii) that the Company’s internal and disclosure controls were materially deficient; and (iv) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its prospects and growth.