While the exact nature of the parties' business relationship remains to be determined, there is no dispute that they were to share profits equally and that a definite amount of money was owing to plaintiff. Absent an agreement deferring payment of uncollected moneys for services rendered, or a genuine issue casting doubt upon their collectibility, we agree with the IAS Court that such moneys are "profits" to which plaintiff is entitled to its half share (cf., Dreier v Linden, 70 A.D.2d 820, 821, affd sub nom. Zuckerman v Linden, 66 N.Y.2d 706). Plaintiff's argument that defendant is improperly raising the meaning of the term "profit" for the first time on appeal is moot in view of the foregoing, and also without merit (see, Matter of Knickerbocker Field Club v Site Selection Bd., 41 A.D.2d 539, 540, citing Persky v Bank of Am. Natl. Assn., 261 N.Y. 212, 218-219).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.