Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the appellants' cross motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against them, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
"While an insurance broker acting as an agent of its customer has a duty of reasonable care to the customer to obtain the requested coverage within a reasonable time after the request, or to inform the customer of the agent's inability to do so, the agent owes no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct the customer insured to obtain additional coverage (see, Blonsky v Allstate Ins. Co., 128 Misc.2d 981)" (Erwig v. Cook Agency, 173 A.D.2d 439). The plaintiffs have failed to establish that they made a specific request of the appellants as to the amount of supplementary uninsured motorist coverage that they wanted to procure, or that the appellants made any specific representations as to the coverage obtained, which was the maximum amount required to be offered under Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) (see, Erwig v. Cook Agency, supra, at 439-440; cf., Neil Plumbing Heating Constr. Corp. v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co., 125 A.D.2d 295). Nor have the plaintiffs established that the amount of supplementary uninsured motorist coverage that they now claim they wanted the appellants to procure for them was, in fact, available (see, American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Salvatore, 102 A.D.2d 342). Thus the appellants are entitled to summary judgment on those causes of action asserted against them. Balletta, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Goldstein, JJ., concur.