Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's amended complaint alleged that he had entered into an oral partnership agreement or, in the alternative, a joint venture agreement, with the defendant professional corporation. The plaintiff further alleged that, as a partner, he received a share of the profits from the enterprise. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

On a motion for summary judgment, the movant must establish his cause of action sufficiently to warrant judgment in his favor as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The opposing party must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact (Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra, at 562). The issue of whether a partnership or joint venture exists is a question of fact (see, Brodsky v Stadlen, 138 A.D.2d 662; see also, Ramirez v. Goldberg, 82 A.D.2d 850). If an individual receives a share of the profits of a business, it is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, as long as these profits were not received by an employee as wage payments (see, Partnership Law § 11 [b]). We find that the plaintiff demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to whether a partnership or joint venture was formed between the plaintiff and the defendant professional corporation. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber and Copertino, JJ., concur.