dangerous depends on the circumstances, a review of the undisputed facts under the guidelines stated in Doundoulakis v. Town of Hempstead, 42 N.Y.2d 440, 448, 368 N.E.2d 24, 27, 398 N.Y.S.2d 401, 404 (1977), convinces us that a New York court would find as a matter of law that Shore’s maintenance of the site — for example, allowing corroding tanks to hold hundreds of thousands of gallons of hazardous waste — constitutes abnormally dangerous activity and thus constitutes a public nuisance. Shore Realty, 759 F.2d at 1051-52 (citing Schenectady II, 479 N.Y.S.2d at 1013; State of New York v. Monarch Chemicals, Inc., 90 A.D.2d 907, 456 N.Y.S.2d 867, 868-69 (3rd Dept.1982); New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection v. Ventrón Corp., 94 N.J. 473, 492, 468 A.2d 150, 160 (1983) (<HOLDING>)). The Doundoulakis case involved the question
holding that water stock sold appurtenant to land represents an interest in water which is a real properly right holding that simply dumping a hazardous substance onto land or into water is an abnormally dangerous activity holding that cercla does not require proof that defendants hazardous substance in fact contaminated plaintiffs property holding that knowledge that a substance is a controlled substance is an element of  952 holding without discussion that a cercla arranger must own or possess the hazardous substance at issue