Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about February 2, 2005, after trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about February 2, 2005 affirmed, without costs.

To the extent that the small claims action is founded upon allegations that defendant unlawfully practiced "manipulation" or massage therapy in violation of Education Law §6512(1), no private right of action is available under the statute (see Requa v Coopers & Lybrand, 303 AD2d 159 [2003]; see generally Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d 186, 200 [2004]). Nor
is there any indication in the record that defendant or its employees otherwise engaged in actionable conduct in "refus[ing]" plaintiff's request for a massage or that plaintiff sustained any compensable damages as a result of defendant's refusal. The dismissal of the action after trial thus accomplished "substantial justice" consistent with substantive law principles (CCA 1804, 1807).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court. [*2]
Decision Date: February 23, 2006