Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant insurance broker had no duty to advise them of the availability of underinsured motorist coverage, or to obtain such coverage on their behalf. Under New York law, the duty owed by an insurance agent to an insurance customer is ordinarily defined by the nature of the request a customer makes to the agent ( see, Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v Montano, 215 A.D.2d 617; Wied v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 208 A.D.2d 1132). Thus, absent a specific request for coverage not already provided in a client's insurance policy, neither an insurance company nor its agent has a common-law duty to advise a client to procure additional coverage ( see, Chaim v Benedict, 216 A.D.2d 347; Hjemdahl-Monsen v. Faulkner, 204 A.D.2d 516, 517). At bar, the plaintiffs assert that they asked the defendant to obtain the "best" available insurance coverage. However, since it is undisputed that the plaintiffs never requested underinsurance coverage, the defendant had no duty to recommend or procure that coverage ( see, e.g., Chaim v. Benedict, supra; Wied v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., supra; Erwig v Cook Agency, 173 A.D.2d 439). Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.