Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation In the ordinary course of our business, we are routinely made a defendant in or a party to pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings which, in some cases, seek substantial monetary damages from or other forms of relief against us. In our opinion, after consultation with legal counsel, we believe it unlikely that such actions or proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. City of New York Notice of Determination By “Notice of Determination” dated September 14, 2010 and August 26, 2011, or the 2010 and 2011 Notices, the City of New York notified us of alleged tax deficiencies in the amount of $13.3 million, including interest and penalties, related to our 2006 through 2008 tax years. The deficiencies related to our operation of Fidata Service Corp., or Fidata, and Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp., or AF Mortgage, subsidiaries of Astoria Bank. We disagree with the assertion of the tax deficiencies. Hearings on the 2010 and 2011 Notices were held before the New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal, or the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal, in March and April 2013. On October 29, 2014, the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal issued a decision favorable to us canceling the 2010 and 2011 Notices. The City of New York appealed the decision of the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal. The parties have prepared and submitted briefs to the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal and are scheduled to present oral arguments on November 19, 2015. At this time, management believes it is more likely than not that we will succeed in defending against the City of New York’s appeal. Accordingly, no liability or reserve has been recognized in our consolidated statement of financial condition at September 30, 2015 with respect to this matter. By “Notice of Determination” dated November 19, 2014, or the 2014 Notice, the City of New York notified us of an alleged tax deficiency in the amount of $6.1 million, including interest and penalties, related to our 2009 and 2010 tax years, and by "Notice of Determination" dated August 5, 2015, or the 2015 Notice, the City of New York notified us of an alleged tax deficiency in the amount of $2.1 million, including interest and penalties, related to our 2011 through 2013 tax years. These deficiencies related to our operation of Fidata and AF Mortgage and the bases of the 2014 Notice and the 2015 Notice are substantially the same as that of the 2010 and 2011 Notices. We disagree with the assertion of the tax deficiencies, and we filed Petitions for Hearing with the City of New York on February 13, 2015 and September 9, 2015 to oppose the 2014 Notice and the 2015 Notice, respectively. By notice dated June 4, 2015, the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal informed the parties that the proceedings relating to the 2014 Notice were adjourned pending the resolution of the proceedings with respect to the 2010 and 2011 Notices, the outcome of which may be determinative of some or all of the issues in this matter. On September 17, 2015, the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal informed the parties that, barring the filing of an objection, the September 2015 Petition for Hearing would be consolidated with the February 2015 Petition and thus also adjourned pending resolution of the proceedings related to the 2010 and 2011 Notices. At this time, management believes it is more likely than not that we will succeed in refuting the City of New York’s position asserted in the 2014 Notice and the 2015 Notice. Accordingly, no liability or reserve has been recognized in our consolidated statement of financial condition at September 30, 2015 with respect to this matter. No assurance can be given as to whether or to what extent we will be required to pay the amount of the tax deficiencies asserted by the City of New York, whether additional tax will be assessed for years subsequent to 2013, that these matters will not be costly to oppose, that these matters will not have an impact on our financial condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will not be material. Merger-related Litigation On November 4, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, naming as defendants Astoria, its directors and NYCB. The complaint alleges that the Astoria directors breached their fiduciary duties to Astoria’s public shareholders by approving the Merger at an unfair price, that the Merger was the product of a flawed sales process, that the directors approved provisions in the Merger Agreement that constitute impermissible deal protection devices and that certain directors of Astoria will receive personal benefits from the Merger not shared in by other Astoria stockholders. The complaint further alleges that NYCB aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin completion of the Merger and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. Astoria believes this action is without merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Litigation

In the ordinary course of our business, we are routinely made a defendant in or a party to pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings which, in some cases, seek substantial monetary damages from or other forms of relief against us. In our opinion, after consultation with legal counsel, we believe it unlikely that such actions or proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

City of New York Notice of Determination

By “Notice of Determination” dated September 14, 2010 and August 26, 2011, or the 2010 and 2011 Notices, the City of New York notified us of alleged tax deficiencies in the amount of $13.3 million, including interest and penalties, related to our 2006 through 2008 tax years. The deficiencies related to our operation of Fidata Service Corp., or Fidata, and Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp., or AF Mortgage, subsidiaries of Astoria Bank. We disagree with the assertion of the tax deficiencies. Hearings on the 2010 and 2011 Notices were held before the New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal, or the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal, in March and April 2013. On October 29, 2014, the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal issued a decision favorable to us canceling the 2010 and 2011 Notices. The City of New York appealed the decision of the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal. The parties have prepared and submitted briefs to the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal and are scheduled to present oral arguments on November 19, 2015. At this time, management believes it is more likely than not that we will succeed in defending against the City of New York’s appeal. Accordingly, no liability or reserve has been recognized in our consolidated statement of financial condition at September 30, 2015 with respect to this matter.

By “Notice of Determination” dated November 19, 2014, or the 2014 Notice, the City of New York notified us of an alleged tax deficiency in the amount of $6.1 million, including interest and penalties, related to our 2009 and 2010 tax years, and by "Notice of Determination" dated August 5, 2015, or the 2015 Notice, the City of New York notified us of an alleged tax deficiency in the amount of $2.1 million, including interest and penalties, related to our 2011 through 2013 tax years. These deficiencies related to our operation of Fidata and AF Mortgage and the bases of the 2014 Notice and the 2015 Notice are substantially the same as that of the 2010 and 2011 Notices. We disagree with the assertion of the tax deficiencies, and we filed Petitions for Hearing with the City of New York on February 13, 2015 and September 9, 2015 to oppose the 2014 Notice and the 2015 Notice, respectively. By notice dated June 4, 2015, the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal informed the parties that the proceedings relating to the 2014 Notice were adjourned pending the resolution of the proceedings with respect to the 2010 and 2011 Notices, the outcome of which may be determinative of some or all of the issues in this matter. On September 17, 2015, the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal informed the parties that, barring the filing of an objection, the September 2015 Petition for Hearing would be consolidated with the February 2015 Petition and thus also adjourned pending resolution of the proceedings related to the 2010 and 2011 Notices. At this time, management believes it is more likely than not that we will succeed in refuting the City of New York’s position asserted in the 2014 Notice and the 2015 Notice. Accordingly, no liability or reserve has been recognized in our consolidated statement of financial condition at September 30, 2015 with respect to this matter.

No assurance can be given as to whether or to what extent we will be required to pay the amount of the tax deficiencies asserted by the City of New York, whether additional tax will be assessed for years subsequent to 2013, that these matters will not be costly to oppose, that these matters will not have an impact on our financial condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will not be material.

Merger-related Litigation

On November 4, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, naming as defendants Astoria, its directors and NYCB. The complaint alleges that the Astoria directors breached their fiduciary duties to Astoria’s public shareholders by approving the Merger at an unfair price, that the Merger was the product of a flawed sales process, that the directors approved provisions in the Merger Agreement that constitute impermissible deal protection devices and that certain directors of Astoria will receive personal benefits from the Merger not shared in by other Astoria stockholders. The complaint further alleges that NYCB aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin completion of the Merger and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. Astoria believes this action is without merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.