DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff claims that an agreement to pay him additional executive compensation constituted meaningful participation in the defendants' real property development projects. However, there was no agreement concerning what would constitute meaningful participation. Even if there was such an agreement, it constituted an unenforceable agreement to agree (see, Martin Delicatessen v. Schumacher, 52 N.Y.2d 105; Lazard Freres Co. v. First Natl. Bank, 268 A.D.2d 294; Parkway Group v. Modell's Sporting Goods, 254 A.D.2d 338).
The causes of action to recover in quantum meruit and to recover a brokerage commission were properly dismissed. The plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to raise a material issue of fact concerning the reasonableness of his belief that he was entitled to additional compensation above and beyond his $95,000 salary or that there was an agreement, express or implied, that he would be paid a brokerage commission (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Ormond Park Realty v. Round Hill Dev. Corp., 266 A.D.2d 523; Umscheid v. Simnacher, 106 A.D.2d 380; see also, Reisner v. Recco Temporary Servs., 136 A.D.2d 686).
The cause of action to recover damages for fraud was properly dismissed. General allegations that a defendant entered into a contract while lacking the intent to perform it are insufficient to state a cause of action for fraud (see, New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308, 318; Jim Longo, Inc. v. Rutigliano, 251 A.D.2d 547).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.