It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion seeking partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). “Plaintiffs work in the area of the open and unguarded [opening] subjected plaintiff to a hazard that the devices required by section 240 (1) are designed to protect against” (Griffin v MWF Dev. Corp., 273 AD2d 907, 908 [2000]). “Because plaintiff fell through an opening in the floor, he is entitled to judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1)” (Russell v Baker Rd. Dev., 278 AD2d 790, 790 [2000], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 824 [2001]).
Moreover, the court properly refused to grant that part of the cross motions seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff s Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action to the extent that it is based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (see Carpenter v 149 Edison St., 269 AD2d 751 [2000]), and 12 NYCRR 23-1.15 (see Wells v British Am. Dev. Corp., 2 AD3d 1141, 1143-1144 [2003]). Present— Pigott, Jr., PJ., Gorski, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.