Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Litigation
Litigation	12. 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, 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 relate to our operation of two subsidiaries of Astoria Federal, Fidata Service Corp., or Fidata, and Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp., or AF Mortgage. We disagree with the assertion of the tax deficiencies. Hearings in this matter were held before the New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal, or the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal, in March and April 2013. The NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal is not expected to render a decision in this matter until 2014. At this time, management believes it is more likely than not that we will succeed in refuting the City of New York’s position, although defense costs may be significant. Accordingly, no liability or reserve has been recognized in our consolidated statement of financial condition at June 30, 2013 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 2008, that this matter will not be costly to oppose, that this matter will not have an impact on our financial condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will not be material. Automated Transactions LLC Litigation In November 2009, an action entitled Automated Transactions LLC v. Astoria Financial Corporation and Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Southern District Court, against us by Automated Transactions LLC, alleging patent infringement involving integrated banking and transaction machines, including automated teller machines, or ATMs, that we utilize. We were served with the summons and complaint in such action in March 2010. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction preventing us from continuing to utilize the allegedly infringing machines. We filed an answer and counterclaims to the plaintiff’s complaint in March 2010. In May 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint at the direction of the Southern District Court containing substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. We subsequently moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In March 2011, the Southern District Court entered an order on the record that dismissed all claims against Astoria Financial Corporation but denied the motion to dismiss the claims against Astoria Federal for alleged direct patent infringement. The order also dismissed in part the claims against Astoria Federal for alleged inducement of our customers to violate plaintiff’s patents and for Astoria Federal’s allegedly willful violation of the plaintiff’s patents, allowing claims to continue only for alleged inducement and willful infringement after our receiving notice of the pending suit from plaintiff’s counsel. In March 2011, we answered the amended complaint substantially denying the allegations. In July 2012, we filed a motion for summary judgment for non-infringement based on a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal District affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, or the Delaware District Court, decision to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant in an action involving the same plaintiff making substantially similar allegations with respect to identical and substantially similar patents as those involved in the action against us. In April 2013, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action to the Delaware District Court to be centralized with other cases involving the same plaintiff and common questions of fact. Our motion for summary judgment is now pending before the Delaware District Court. We have tendered requests for indemnification from the manufacturer and from the transaction processor utilized with respect to the integrated banking and transaction machines, and we served third party complaints against Metavante Corporation and Diebold, Inc. seeking to enforce our indemnification rights. These complaints are being defended by Metavante Corporation and Diebold, Inc. and we intend to pursue these complaints vigorously. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. An adverse result in this lawsuit may include an award of monetary damages, on-going royalty obligations, and/or may result in a change in our business practice, which could result in a loss of revenue. We cannot at this time estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. No assurance can be given at this time that this litigation against us will be resolved amicably, that if this litigation results in an adverse decision that we will be successful in seeking indemnification, that this litigation will not be costly to defend, that this litigation will not have an impact on our financial condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will not be material. Lefkowitz Litigation In February 2012, we were served with a summons and complaint in a putative class action entitled Ellen Lefkowitz, individually and on behalf of all Persons similarly situated v. Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association which was commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, or the Queens County Supreme Court, against us alleging that during the proposed class period, we improperly charged overdraft fees to customer accounts when accounts were not overdrawn, improperly reordered electronic debit transactions from the highest to the lowest dollar amount and processed debits before credits to deplete accounts and maximize overdraft fee income. The complaint contains the further assertion that we did not adequately inform our customers that they had the option to “opt-out” of overdraft services. In May 2012, we moved to dismiss the complaint. In July 2012, the Queens County Supreme Court issued an order dismissing the complaint in its entirety. In September 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, or the New York Supreme Court. The plaintiff failed to perfect the appeal by the March 7, 2013 deadline. By order dated May 3, 2013, this case was dismissed by the New York Supreme Court.

12. 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, 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 relate to our operation of two subsidiaries of Astoria Federal, Fidata Service Corp., or Fidata, and Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp., or AF Mortgage. We disagree with the assertion of the tax deficiencies. Hearings in this matter were held before the New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal, or the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal, in March and April 2013. The NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal is not expected to render a decision in this matter until 2014. At this time, management believes it is more likely than not that we will succeed in refuting the City of New York’s position, although defense costs may be significant. Accordingly, no liability or reserve has been recognized in our consolidated statement of financial condition at June 30, 2013 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 2008, that this matter will not be costly to oppose, that this matter will not have an impact on our financial condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will not be material.

Automated Transactions LLC Litigation

In November 2009, an action entitled Automated Transactions LLC v. Astoria Financial Corporation and Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Southern District Court, against us by Automated Transactions LLC, alleging patent infringement involving integrated banking and transaction machines, including automated teller machines, or ATMs, that we utilize. We were served with the summons and complaint in such action in March 2010. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction preventing us from continuing to utilize the allegedly infringing machines. We filed an answer and counterclaims to the plaintiff’s complaint in March 2010.

In May 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint at the direction of the Southern District Court containing substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. We subsequently moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In March 2011, the Southern District Court entered an order on the record that dismissed all claims against Astoria Financial Corporation but denied the motion to dismiss the claims against Astoria Federal for alleged direct patent infringement. The order also dismissed in part the claims against Astoria Federal for alleged inducement of our customers to violate plaintiff’s patents and for Astoria Federal’s allegedly willful violation of the plaintiff’s patents, allowing claims to continue only for alleged inducement and willful infringement after our receiving notice of the pending suit from plaintiff’s counsel. In March 2011, we answered the amended complaint substantially denying the allegations.

In July 2012, we filed a motion for summary judgment for non-infringement based on a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal District affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, or the Delaware District Court, decision to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant in an action involving the same plaintiff making substantially similar allegations with respect to identical and substantially similar patents as those involved in the action against us. In April 2013, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action to the Delaware District Court to be centralized with other cases involving the same plaintiff and common questions of fact. Our motion for summary judgment is now pending before the Delaware District Court.

We have tendered requests for indemnification from the manufacturer and from the transaction processor utilized with respect to the integrated banking and transaction machines, and we served third party complaints against Metavante Corporation and Diebold, Inc. seeking to enforce our indemnification rights. These complaints are being defended by Metavante Corporation and Diebold, Inc. and we intend to pursue these complaints vigorously.

We intend to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. An adverse result in this lawsuit may include an award of monetary damages, on-going royalty obligations, and/or may result in a change in our business practice, which could result in a loss of revenue. We cannot at this time estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. No assurance can be given at this time that this litigation against us will be resolved amicably, that if this litigation results in an adverse decision that we will be successful in seeking indemnification, that this litigation will not be costly to defend, that this litigation will not have an impact on our financial condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will not be material.

Lefkowitz Litigation

In February 2012, we were served with a summons and complaint in a putative class action entitled Ellen Lefkowitz, individually and on behalf of all Persons similarly situated v. Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association which was commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, or the Queens County Supreme Court, against us alleging that during the proposed class period, we improperly charged overdraft fees to customer accounts when accounts were not overdrawn, improperly reordered electronic debit transactions from the highest to the lowest dollar amount and processed debits before credits to deplete accounts and maximize overdraft fee income. The complaint contains the further assertion that we did not adequately inform our customers that they had the option to “opt-out” of overdraft services. In May 2012, we moved to dismiss the complaint. In July 2012, the Queens County Supreme Court issued an order dismissing the complaint in its entirety. In September 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, or the New York Supreme Court. The plaintiff failed to perfect the appeal by the March 7, 2013 deadline. By order dated May 3, 2013, this case was dismissed by the New York Supreme Court.